Steve...are you willing to admit that "cut and run" was a big mistake and loosing strategy in Somalia and Haiti?

Yeah,
 

Seems to me...I do need help from one of you researchers here...every single resolution that we went to war with in 2003, were actually drafted, written, proposed and eventually accepted by the UN under the Clinton Administration, were they not?

Clinton just did not have the balls to get into another war after he failed miserably twice. He knew what needed to be done, his aides told him what needed to be done, but he only took it so far before dropping the ball in another's lap.

Steve, et al...nobody, I repeat nobody on here or anywhere else hates this war more than I. I just don't think that screaming in the streets and running down the Commander-in-Chief is a way to bring it to an end. I think that does nothing other than give our enemies more strength to continue the fight.

In the days after 9-11, the world quaked at what the U.S. was going to do. The country was united and there is not one country on this earth that exists, except for the kindness of the American heart. We went into Afganistan, and rightly so, the world eased a sigh of relief, we were on coarse and aiding the world. We lost a few soldiers, damn shame, the country started to waiver. Next, Iraq. We lost more soldiers, damn shame, the cause is just and the long term effects are worth it.

A lady looses her son and camps out on the steps of the CINC ranch, bring world attention to the anti-war "movement".

Tell me, what has happened with the increase in anti-war rallies and negative press? Have the terrorist stopped there campaigns? Have they decided to not plant more bombs and do more kidnappings? I think if you look at the number you will find that they have done nothing but increase since the start of the protests and articles condemning the CINC.

I did vote for Bush the first time around, not the second, in fact I did not vote at all in the last election. I still feel that in a time of war you must stand united.

Trav

Steve, please rephrase your question, not sure I quite understand

I don't believe the good Congressman's war record needs to be derided, nor his character. I also think that calling Bush a liar over the information available when we went to war is a bit disingenuous. Every Congressman on Capital Hill had exactly the same information that Bush had. It's now an academic argument.

Bringing up any president's military servicedoesn't create much of an argument. Lincoln was an unsuccessful CPT in the Blackhawk war, yet turned out to be a very resolute wartime leader. FDR had polio and certainly wasn't in the military. On the other hand Grant was an outstanding general but a mediocre president. JFK's war record was not trumped up, but neither was it as heroic as it was made out to be.

I also think that history is going to be kinder to Bush in regards to WMD's, I've been doing a pretty detailed study of the UN inspector's daily notes and there are enough "smoking guns" there to create a lot of suspicion. I wouldn't be surprised if the road to Syria didn't glow, it was so radioactive.

It is true that Clinton was pres when the resolutions were drafted, but in his defense I think he would have been crucified if he had tried to enforce them any more forcefully then he did (and this is a judgement call.)

As far as there not being enough troops in the theater, there never has been a war in history where the commanders (or their critics) felt they had enough men.

As far as troop withdrawals are concerned, they are going to happen and when they do everyone can claim to be the guy who suggested it. 30,000 are coming home right after the Iraqi elections (Dec 15). The press has come up with a magic number of 100,000 troops to be left. There is nothing supporting that number, if the tactical situation is steady, the number could be below 40,000.

As more Iraq units come on line, (and they are coming on line) more troops will come home, simple as that. My guess is that by the time of the next presidential elections things are going to be fairly smooth in Iraq.

Remember, we did not say we were going to stay until there was no more terrorism, we said we would stay until the Iraqis could handle the terrorists. And I think they will handle them quite well. No reporters at the prisons. Terrorists caught in the act would be dealt with, etc. No more Mr. Nice Guy in the Iraqi dominated areas. Iraqis may not be quite up to speed in the military technology side of things but they are good at making people talk, and communication is one solution to terrorism.

So what if we are setting up a Shia dominated government, Shias are the majority, why not? They have a strong middle class that is very world-wise and there is no way they want to be under Shariah or Taliban law. The Sunnis have two problems: 1) they are the minority, a minority that abused power both under the British and under Saddam, just how deep does revenge run? 2) the oil deposits are in Kurdish and Shiite areas, so if the country breaks up, they are immediately the poor stepsister. And if the country does partition, so what? It might even be in our best interests. The Kurds are our staunchest ally in the region.

Iraq is not a quagmire, there is a strategy, in fact more then one and they are working. One I have already mentioned, building up the Iraqis so they can deal with terrorists in their own land. Our strategy in Anbar Province has been to isolate each village in turn and let Iraqi troops supported by US troops scour the village then establish a permanent Iraqi military presence. This strategy also involves placing permanent bases on the border with Syria. There is also a larger Mid-East strategy, but I can't discuss it here because I have to go to the john and I am getting tired of crossing my legs.

RW

RW
 

First of all, thank you for a very insightful addition to this thread. Your grasp of history and its attendant interactions is genuinely appreciated by me.

Secondly, I fully support your contention that Syria's hands are definitely in the glow-in-the-dark category, and some surprising, at least surprising to some, truths will eventually come out of Damascus.

And finally, it's not just in Anwar province, but other areas as well that true success stories are being written everyday, only to be excluded from the news of the day.

CONFUCIUS: Life too short to suffer full bladder!

Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., the congressman at the center of the battle last week over withdrawal of troops from Iraq removed the results from his own Internet poll on the subject after online voters overwhelmingly opposed his stance. Murtha posted the poll after he ignited a firestorm in the House that led to Republicans forcing a quick vote on the issue Friday.

While a revised poll page remains on the site, the link to it from his homepage has been removed, making the survey effectively invisible to the public.

The call for immediate withdrawal garnered just 12 percent of the more than 12,000 votes.

Following three hours of intense debate Friday, the House voted 403-3 to reject a non-binding resolution to immediately withdraw troops from Iraq. Responding to Murtha, House Republicans scheduled the quick vote to settle the issue and put lawmakers on the record. The Republican alternative by Rep. Duncan Hunter of California read: "It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

Democrats accused Republicans of changing the meaning of Murtha's proposal. The Democrat hawk has said a smooth withdrawal would take six months.

At his press conference Thursday, however, Murtha stated: "I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid-December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice: The United States will immediately redeploy ? immediately redeploy."

Democratic New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton apparently interpreted Murtha's stance as a call for immediate withdrawal, saying such a move would be a "big mistake."

Re: Yeah,
 

The point being made is to first understand the demographics of all who enlisted or were drafted during that era, and then see where the President, or ourselves for that matter, fall into the numbers... by way of comparison with what is alledged about those facts.

Examples:

9,087,000 persons served in uniform during the era 1964-1975, one of whom was GW Bush.

compared with:

3,403,100 served in theatre, a difference of almost 6,000,000 who did not. Of the 3+ million, about 500,000 served in theatre but not in-country.

compared with:

648,500 (of 2.9 million) serving were draftees, a difference just short of 2.3 million contrary to common belief about how comparitively widespread the draft was.

compared with:

76% serving in theatre were from lower - middle class working backgrounds.

compared with:
About 6,000 National Guard served in-country.

compared with:
The VN war in particular spanned the years 1964-1973. Prior to 1964, 50,000 served there in uniform... among whom were the airmen with whom I became associated for and from MAAG-VN in a very small way. GW Bush's uniformed service was from 1968-73... i.e. the end of the war.

compared with:
The Paris "Peace Talks" lasted from 1967 - 1973... i.e. they began 3 years after the official onset of the war, and ended 6 years later. Something tells me that if Peace Talks begin 3 years after the onset of a war started by politicians, then everyone who suffers during the time thereafter suffers not because of their own conduct or misconduct, but rather due to the inability of politicians to make peace. That group would include GW Bush and many who post here on PF.

In other words:
a. George W. Bush was far from being unique in the duration or characteristics of his service. So, why single him out? Every single time I have seen the President in the presence of our serving military, he is cheered and welcomed wholeheartedly... and every single one of those doing the cheering are surely, by now, aware that he was in the Air National Guard. No, he is not an exemplary VN combat hero... not all were, even among those who served there; though only a few know what it takes to receive or give angry fire. To those of you who did so, in whatever way, wherever, for however long, with whomever... thank you. Your sacrifice is honored by yourselves, in family memories, here on PF and other similar places and by The Wall for anyone having any care.

b. The chances of serving in combat in-country Vietnam were relatively small in relation to the total number in uniform OR in-country.

c. G.W. Bush's chances of BEING sent in-country were far higher than the great majority in uniform simply because he was flying a combat jet. That is to say, he was not a clerk-typist.

d. Since he is clearly NOT among the lower - middle working class, his chances of being sent under ANY conditions were roughly 25%, at best.

e. If only 6,000+ National Guard served in-country, in what sense would he have been "hiding out" among them in unform?

Obviously his service is not comparable to that of Mr. Murtha, but then neither were either of them on the front lines here at home protesting that war, nor were either of them dodging the draft, getting deferrments and the like.

Questions that might be asked of those who did serve in combat there could include:
1. Did you have a choice or the final say about your MOS or where you were deployed?
2. If you chose to serve in a combat job, weren't there a great many times when you maybe wished you hadn't been so eager to do so?
3. Though many disparage those non-combatants who served in-country or at home as "REMF", could you have gotten along without most of them?
4. Why, are you still so angry, at everyone else? And even if justifiably angry, is there not a better option?

I don't see how anyone who did not serve in-country and especially in a combat unit there can ever possibly know what those who did know... or feel, or experience, or live with every day since that time. All the rest can do is be supportive and empathize... and even thank heaven it wasn't us. This is one reason us "REMF"s, among others who were not REMF, are so determined this time to make absolutely sure that we routinely resist every single attempt to undermine the war effort... and to endure all manner of insults and misleading statements to the contrary, by anyone, including VN combat Vets such as was Mr. Kerry during his "Winter Soldier" testimony. Some say this tendency stems from guilt... and maybe for some it does. But, I think it stems from "Lessons Learned"... and it is surprising that any Vietnam combat Vet would ever repeat the systematic error of not simply waiting until the war had been finished to join in anything that might so much as possibly hamper the efforts in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Anyone on this site who still takes anything I think or write seriously will recall that I did everything possible to speak out AGAINST the onset of this war when I first came here. I did so, and I believe presciently, articulating almost point for point what was going to be, and has now been, the most likely strategic outcome. Indeed, David posted a poll on my request in those early days, asking whether or not America should go to war.

I did think that more time should have been given to UN inspectors. I did predict an increase of insurgent violence. I did state that this war had been planned prior to 9/11. I did express doubt about the presence of wmd as a justification for opening armed hostilities. However, I also stated that once it begins, we must all pull together to win it... and have endeavored ever since then to be faithful to that premise. Nothing else matters at this time, than to complete the mission successfully and to be true to those who are doing the fighting in word and deed.

In the interim, I have done my very best to familiarize myself with the history and traditions of those who live in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with all that led up to this war. I have done my very best to understand the logic or illogic of the warfare and the war from our side and theirs... strategically, tactically and logistically. I have come away from that research seeing that the war was inevitable, and even quite a bit tardy. Hopefully, apparently, not TOO much so.

None of this makes either one of them (Bush, Murtha nor any of us) more right or more wrong about their positions on the war in Iraq or Afghanistan... is perhaps the key point being made.

Summary
 

It what has to be the shortest blip on the radar screen, the brief attempt to mandate a cut and run policy has made history. The extreme leftist wing of the Democrat party probably cornered poor ol' John Murtha and made him trot out his proposal. They knew he had a fine combat record, and believed that his record would provide a valid shield against any criticism of the proposal to cut and run. What they failed to realize is that the general population could clearly see through the canard, and rejected his proposal decisively. When a legislative attempt to presented to make legislators go on the record, to either put up or shut up, the vast majority on both sides of the aisle voted against anything like Murtha proposed. He even voted against it.

OK, here's the deal. The political left is going to leave no stone unturned to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.