<p>Thank you very much, Hope everything goes your way as well.</p>
<p>Corinnas,
Let me add my thanks for your time and sacrifice. I know it was not easy but I, for one, appreciate what you have done. Thank you.</p>
<p>You are very welcome, glad to have done it. Thanks for the support!</p>
<p>corrinas54 - For many of us parents, I am sure our experiences with Viet Nam color our thoughts about this war in Iraq, regardless of our view of that war. As was true then, the soldiers called to duty or who responded voluntarily to a call to duty were not the target of the public’s objection but they were/are impacted by the public’s objection. You must certainly be aware that many people feel this strike, for the purpose of uncovering WPMs, was pre-emptive and based on unsubstantiated perceptions of threat to our country. This cowboy like behavior - to strike pre-emptively, to deny the global community’s judgment and recommendations and act without regard for future consequences and people’s lives and livings - is not consistent with my view of America’s leadership and role as peacekeeper. For many of us, the loss of life to this war is just shocking given the misinformation that led to the engagement and frankly, beyond explanation or justification. If we were to attack every country with non-democratic leadership we would be perpetually at war and stationed in numerous countries. I appreciate the tremendous sacrifice you have made to voluntarily participate in the country’s armed services but like mimi I do not accept the premise that any soldier is in Iraq sacrificing his life for me - I do not support this war or the type of thinking that led to it’s initiation. No soldier dies for me in Iraq. That is, of course, a different discussion than whether or not we need to have trained armed forces in place.</p>
<p>Recruiters should not have carte blanche access to my under aged sons and daughters without my permission. At our school recruiters were present in the cafeteria repeatedly, sat with students while they had lunch, made offers to them and told them how they would see the world. Although they are not supposed to speak to younger students, their presence creates much interest from the 14 and 15 year olds and they are well noticed by the younger students. All high school students are impressionable and the allure of the uniform, travel, bodybuilding, money for college, and other incentives is not comparable or equal in nature to the once a year visit from college admissions officers who sit in a side room and see peoplewho have signed up with interest by appointment. The admissions officers do not offer inducements - I have yet to see Harvard wine and dine my son! And, ultimately, I know if and when the BU admissions officer is coming and I know what they tell my son, but I do not know iwhen two Marines spend hours with my son and I do not know what they offer him as an inducement to put his life in George Bush’s hands.<br>
My nephew is a West Point grad - he joined the army after he flunked out of college freshman year because he reacted to his parents’ distress and his embarassment. A week later he realized what he had done and tried to change his commitment. He spent 3 years in the Army, ultimately went to WP Prep and then to WP and is now heading to the Middle East. Although he has made these choices and by many standards has done quite well, to me, this is an example of how one low moment can be influenced by a recuiter. I don’t want my sons influenced in a low moment or period, or even by teenage bravado, to put their lives in someone else’s hands. Not everyone gets to go to WP and that is not a path I hope to see my children choose, regardless. Parents have a right to know who is talking to their underage children in the public school system. Parents have the right to opt out of that influence if they believe it is right for their family or their child.</p>
<p>corrinas54, count me as one of the people who is truly grateful for your sacrifice and understand and agree with your mission. Having looked at all of the reasons for war (there were more than one) and looked at the ramifications of not going to war, I was one of the many who concluded that the war made sense. </p>
<p>Note, however, that like most situations of such gravity, there can be no absolutes in terms of what the right thing to do was. In this case, there certainly were valid arguments against the war and for those who make and stick with those reasons I have respect, but respectfully disagree.</p>
<p>fundingfather I think we have had this discussion before…but, if your doctor decided not to look at your latest studies before determining how to proceed with your treatment would you find that admirable? Sticking with this course of action when new data supports the futility of it and the high cost to our soldiers and innocent Iraqis is not worthy of respect in my opinion. I respectfully disagree as well.</p>
<p>If my doctor had a series of tests over a 12 year period all with the same results, and if a panel of other leading specialists all agreed with my doctor, as did the doctor that I had for the previous 8 years, and if by postponing treatment for yet another test (which was known ahead of time to be inconclusive) it might jeopardize my health, I would definitely switch doctors if he said I needed another test.</p>
<p>Continuing the analogy, once the treatment was started, if it was determined that I would be worse off by ending the treatment, I would be loathe to terminate the treatment just because some other doctors who initially supported the procedure but who were contending for the position of chief resident with my doctor started to be critical of the procedure.</p>
<p>funding father:</p>
<p>I just have to say - What a nicely written and thought out anaology and support for our President! I wish I could have stated it as well as you did - my compliments! I couldn’t agree more :)</p>
<p>I would just like to say, that in no way was I giving my opinion on this particular war, perhaps I am not as good as expressing myself as I would like. I was only trying to point out that whether you support a war or not, there is no need to blame the soldiers who are there doing their job, and supporting their country. Suprisingly enough, there are many soldiers who do not agree with this war, but they made a commitment to serve their country, and they will always honor that no matter what. I respect everyones opinion and wish there were not a need for the military, BUT THERE IS and always will be, and those who are willing to sacrifice for freedom should be supported.</p>
<p>Ps the issue of recruitment is a whole different story!</p>
<p>Corrinas54 - I have nothing but absolute respect for you and your courage and commitment, and I don’t know of any antiwar activist who blames the troops for the war or would not want to see the troops supported. However, we simply believe that the best way to support our troops is to avoid sending them into harm’s way for unnecessary or ill-conceived wars. </p>
<p>I would also say that while I respect the reality that when you volunteered for service, your goals were - and still are - to protect American freedom. And I am well aware that once you have enlisted in the military, you must obey all orders whether or not you agree with them. But that does not mean that our troops are defending our freedom, or fighting for freedom, when the military is misused or abused through deployment in unprovoked foreign wars. That doesn’t in any way diminish the value of your service – but keep in mind that those who serve in other ways, including those who have protested the war - are also interested in depending American freedom. I personally think that this war has hurt the cause of American security and freedom tremendously: we have a weaker military, a weaker economy, a weaker ability to defend our nation against more likely threats, and more people throughout the world who hate and despise us, including a stronger insurgency in Iraq. I think that the decision to tie down our troops and commit our resources to this war have also allowed Iran and North Korea to actively develop nuclear weapons, confident that we do not have the resources to mount a second offensive. </p>
<p>I don’t blame our troops for this, I blame their commanders. Not the generals – as far as I know, the military leaders all advised the Bush administration that more troops would be needed than Bush & Rusmfeld planned, and Bush/Rusmfeld chose to ignore the advice. So for me, the blame goes strictly to the Bush administration. </p>
<p>I do think that, as difficult as it is for the men and women already serving in the military, it is incumbant on those who oppose the war and who still have a choice to refrain from participating in it. If in the end we have a draft, so be it – but I think that in the present political climate, Congress would be unlikely to authorize a draft unless there were a clear timetable for withdrawal of troops from Iraq - there are many Republicans in Congress who have lost patience with Bush’s policy of evasion and excuses. </p>
<p>Or to put things more succintly: the recruitment problem is a direct result of Bush’s policies and his mistakes. Bush very recklessly gambled that he could wage a quick war with little repercussions; instead, the result was exactly as all of the people who cautioned against the war (including his own father) anticipated. This is not a fight for freedom; it is a losing battle to try to hold down the fort to keep things from getting worse, with no end in sight.</p>
<p>Calmom, are there any circumstances in which you would have supported the Iraq war? You imply that pre-emptive military action against Iran or N. Korea may have been appropriate to keep them from going nuclear, so you must not be against all military intervention. So, what would it have taken in the case of Iraq for you to be behind the war?</p>
<p>BTW, the war plan with the number of troops involved was specifically laid out by Tommy Franks and his staff. The one thing that did not go according to plan was the invasion of northern Iraq from Turkey by the 4th Infantry Division. This would have provided more troops in the Sunni triangle to help pacify those areas. Turkey didn’t allow it and many anti-war people in this country cheered Turkey’s position.</p>
<p>I agree with the idea Charles Rangel floated before the war–reinstitute the draft, and then we’ll see how serious support for the war really is!
Also, agree with those who say support for our soldiers and support for the war are two different things.</p>
<p>Why draft youngsters into public service, why not experienced adults? At age forty most people could use the physical excercise, it might help them trim down and avoid future heart problems. </p>
<p>Or Happy 50th Birthday year to be a mandatory public service stint. People with skills being employed in the betterment of their community.
Adults with college degrees working as tutors or public service aids to the elderly and poor might become more effective citizens after they spend a year eye level with America’s problems.</p>
<p>As for the war in Iraq, I think anyone who voted for Bush in either election should have known we would be supporting the oil industry in this endeavor. It is a mistake and my heart goes out to everyone involved.</p>
<p>Fundingfather, I did support the war in Afghanistan - and this caused conflicts in our family, because my kids and ex-husband opposed that war as well. But I honestly felt that I had been getting email for years from liberal feminist groups about the horrors of the Taliban and the plight of Afghan women – it seemed hypocritical to all of the sudden oppose intervention - plus I believed that it was clear that OBL had orchestrated the 9/11 attacks and was being harbored in Afghanistan, AND was in league with the Taliban. (In fact, I was very aware of the fact that in June of 2001 OBL had issued statements warning that there was going to be some very big act of terrorism in the coming months – it seemed to me that 9/11 was not a surprise at all, but a monumental failure of intelligence on the part of the US).</p>
<p>Saddam Hussein was contained and the country was stable. I think that it would have been appropriate for the US to support dissident elements in Iraq, including Kurdish fighters; and to continue to maintain no-fly zones and to maintain pressure for weapons inspections. At the time we invaded, Saddam had essentially capitulated to inspectors and was in the process of actively destroying missiles – so on top of everything else, our invasion disrupted the process of inspection and destruction of weapons (potentially making it more difficult to find biological or chemical weapons caches, if any still existed). I believed the testimony of Scott Ritter and I believed the reports of Hans Blix. I debated with people who supported the war, and everything that has now happened I predicted: the insurgency, the conflict between sunnis/shias, the destroyed infrastructure. It’s not that I was prescient – all you had to do was know the history of Iraq’s formation and British occupation of Iraq to know what was likely to happen. Remembering Vietnam didn’t hurt. </p>
<p>I remember specifically telling my daughter before the invasion that the people in Iraq did not like living under Saddam, but they did like having electricity and water and jobs – and their day-to-day lives were probably fairly secure despite restrictions on their liberties. I told her that most would prefer Saddam to being without food or water, or being victimized by looters and criminals – so for that reason a war would not work unless order could quickly be restored.</p>
<p>When there was looting after the invasion, Rumsfeld excused it, saying “free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things”. I told my daughter that Rumsfeld was an anarchist. I’m very far left politically, but not that far – I don’t support anarchy. </p>
<p>So no, under the true facts that existed and were easily ascertainable to anyone paying attention at the time, I could never have supported the war. I was protesting on the streets of San Francisco, my son was protesting on the streets of New York, and my daughter was participating in walkouts and teachins at her high school. If Saddam had invaded another country - it would have been different. But he didn’t - at least this time around. (The invasion of Kuwait was another matter entirely - and I would not have been upset if Saddam had been ousted at that time - but he wasn’t)</p>
<p>I think my view could be adequately summarized in what was once called the Powell doctrine - in which EVERY ONE of the following questions must be answered in the affirmative to justify going to war: </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Is A Vital U.S. Interest At Stake?
Before the United States goes to war, there must a clear risk to national security</p></li>
<li><p>Will We Commit Sufficient Resources To Win?
Force, when used, should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the force used by the enemy.</p></li>
<li><p>Are Our Objectives Clearly Defined?
In Powells words: “We owe it to the men and women who go in harm’s way to make sure that this is always the case and that their lives are not squandered for unclear purposes.” In addition, there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged.</p></li>
<li><p>Will We Sustain the Commitment?
Is the government prepared to sustain the effort if things go wrong.</p></li>
<li><p>Is There A Reasonable Expectation that the Public and Congress Will Support the Operation?
There must be strong support for the campaign by the general public.</p></li>
<li><p>Have we exhausted our other options?
Military action should be used only as a last resort.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I think that for Iraq, points #1, #2, #3, & #6 were clearly lacking… and we clearly have lost ground on #4 and #5. </p>
<p>So basically - THIS war was wrong from the day it was conceived.</p>
<p>Fundingfather, I certainly did not suggest or imply that we should take “preemptive” military action against North Korea – the notion of military defense is to keep a strong presence, not necessarily to attack. When the Bush administration started talking about reducing troop strength in Korea - a need created by the demands of Iraq - we were going down the wrong track – this is a time when we should have more troops and ships stationed near North Korea and have been attentive what was going on.</p>
<p>We managed to weather the cold war with the Soviet Union for ~40 years without either side bombing each other or sending troops, and the cool thing about that is that we won… and Russia has kind of won, too. We sometimes had to make clear that we meant business, as with the Cuban Missile Crisis, but no one blinked and no one made the mistake of being too trigger happy - the most serious incidents were resolved with a lot of bluster and diplomacy.</p>
<p>I see that we disagree on the Powell doctrine:</p>
<p>1)By a “vital interest” Powell does not mean just a threat to our security, it means that that what happens in that country has a significant impact on our country. It could be one of many things from security to economic to political. (Hence, sadly, Sudan does not meet Powell’s test) In the case of Iraq, there are multiple reasons why it met this test - including security.</p>
<p>2) We committed enough resources to achieve what any general (including Powell) would define as a a military victory in a matter of weeks - the complete defeat of the enemy’s army. You can’t do much better than that. There is no proof that more troops would have been able to quell the subsequent uprising. Even today, the generals on the ground are reluctant to add more troops because they don’t want to raise our presence even more. As I said before it would have been greatly beneficial to have had the 4th ID in the initial invasion to have potentially squelched the insurgency in the Sunni triangle. But, to say that we did not have enough troops to achieve a military victory is quite a stretch. If you think we should have committed more, it was not because the administration prevented it - it was because the generals did not want it.</p>
<p>3)How can you say our objective was not clearly defined? It was perfectly clear - topple the Saddam governmemt and assist the Iraqis to set up a new government. Which we have done and are doing.</p>
<p>4)We certainly have sustained it so far - despite pressure from the anti-Bush crowd.</p>
<p>5)There was strong support for the war from both congress and the American people.</p>
<p>6) I guess “last resort” is always open to interpretation. I think 12 years of Saddam thumbing his nose at the UN constitutes “last resort”. Note that even Hans Blix said that had he been allowed to complete his inspections that he would not be in a position to assure the world that there were none. </p>
<p>You said that we could have maintained the sanctions to keep Saddam in his box. This ignores several facts. First the sanctions were already extremely porous with France, Germany and Russia openly violating them. Secondly, had Saddam complied with the UN mandate regarding inspections, there would no longer be a justification to continue the sanctions. Third, what the Duelfer report found was that it was well known among Saddam’s lieutenants that as soon as the sanctions were removed, that the WMD program would be re-instated. </p>
<p>So, your do nothing strategy would not have just resulted in the status quo of the 1990s (with claims of thousands/millions of deaths due to starvation and disease which you seem to tolerate or at least ignore), but would have resulted with an impowered Saddam with no sanctions and with WMDs to continue his bloody assault of his own people and his neighbors. </p>
<p>That’s the best case scenario. The more likely scenario is that Saddam would have used his WMD expertise to custom make MWDs for terrorist use. This was the real threat to us all along - not the chemical/biological bombs and artillary shells that the army may have had and what was being looked for. These would be of little use to a terrorist. However, Saddam would have been in position to use his expertise in WMD to create weapons suitable for terrorists to deliver. And please, don’t say that he had no connection with terrorists - there are plenty of reports and evidence to suggest otherwise. The only thing that most experts have not found is conclusive evidence of an involvement with 9/11.</p>
<p>Well, actually, the invasion of Iraq (in my judgment) stems from a continuity with the Clinton policy of killing children, not a discontinuity. Remember that instead of weakening the military, a policy was chosen to weaken the population, and to destroy much of its youth. They very clearly knew what they were doing. But the policy wouldn’t have made much sense unless the other shoe fell. The Iraqi military did not rise up, as they hoped, and overthrow Saddam, and allow the installation of a puppet government. And so military action was necessary - and supported strongly by both political parties, including those members of the House and Senate who sat on “intelligence” committees. I think you learn more if you look at the continuity rather than discontinuity in policy, just as policies toward Russia represented a continuity of both Democrat and Republican Administrations.</p>
<p>The other reality is that the number of folks who have died in Iraq since 2003 is a mere fraction of those killed by the destruction of the wastewater treatment plants, coupled with the embargo on simple pharmaceuticals. The difference is that there are American troops on the ground, which causes all the angst here. Don’t think there is any more angst in Iraq today than when the children were dying.</p>
<p>“with claims of thousands/millions of deaths due to starvation and disease which you seem to tolerate or at least ignore”</p>
<p>No “claims” - statement by the Secretary of State. About the same number of people who died in the Rwanda genocide (but more of them children.)</p>
<p>What was found conclusively was there were no WMDs. We have the ability to see a dime on the ground from how many miles up? Are we going to go to war everytime somebody might do something? </p>
<p>The real reason we went into Iraq was to topple Hussein and put our stamp in the country. All these other reasons are bull.</p>
<p>Although there were people like Victor Davis Hanson, and Thomas Friedman stating early on there were other reasons to go to war, the government lied to us. For Bush supporters, that’s no big deal. For those against Bush and those on the fence, the lying is a big deal.</p>
<p>What are Bush’s positive ratings these days?</p>
<p>I love reading Tom and many times I agree with him. Removing all of the speculation regarding WMD…my belief over time since the war began, is look at the map…easiest place to go into the ME and close to SA, our major source of pleasure, little infrastructure so we called on Barney Rubble in a prime location and we are sitting there on a golden egg. That is how it now looks to me.</p>