New Strategy?

[SuperScout]

Pentagon officials say they are increasingly worried that Washington's political fight over the Iraq war will dampen what has been high morale among troops fighting a tenacious and deadly enemy.

Commanders are telling Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that ground troops do not understand the generally negative press that their missions receive, despite what they consider significant achievements in rebuilding Iraq and instilling democracy. The commanders also worry about the public's declining support for the mission and what may be a growing movement inside the Democratic Party to advocate troop withdrawal from Iraq.

"They say morale is very high," said a senior Pentagon official of reports filed by commanders with Washington. "But they relate comments from troops asking, 'What the heck is going on back here' and why America isn't seeing the progress they are making or appreciating the mission the way those on the ground there do. My take is that they are wondering if America is still behind them."

So this is how some "support our troops"? Anything that dampens the morale of our troops is something that plays right into the hands of our enemy.

[exlrrp]

WHats intersting to me is how the people who got us into this unending disaster, who sent the troops over with not enough men or the proper equiment, whose policies led to ABu Ghraiib, who allowed the country to be looted, who are borrowing ALL the money from this war from China, now turn around and demand a working plan from the people who opposed it.
Nonononononononono! Whats YOUR plan??.
Nobody ever won from cut and run? We "won" the VIETNAm War by leaving and that country's been at peace for decades now--they want to be an ally--theyyre friendly to America now. Just ask TOM and KAThy. So we "won" that one by leaving, we haven't lost a life or a dollar in decades over that war.
Staying doesn't win wars either.Take a look at Korea--we stayed there 50+ years and we haven't won that one either from staying--it just cost us more lives and more billions of $$$. If the KORean war is finally "Won", it will be won by negotiation, just like the IRAq war.

It doesn't matter what the DEMocrats plans are, whats the plan from the people running the show? Theyre the ones who lied our way into this mess.. OH Thats right, stay there much longer, getting a lot more people killed, and the result of this will be......? WHAT exactly? ANother 50 years like Koreaa?
WHATS funnyy is that they say if we wiithdraw, the place will be messed up. HELLOO? Its really a fcked up mess NOW!!
ALL our efforts so far are going to set up an ISslamic state--its in their constitutiion already. IF the administrations plans are followed, there will be an Iraqi army dominated by Shiites.
There's no guarantees at all that things are going to turn out well for us if Bush's plans are followed.--AND SO FAR THEY HAVENT!!
THAts what we get for letting our country be run by someone WITH NO MILITARY QUALIFICATIONS AT ALL!!
Did I mention that on a previous post? I'm posting BUSh's discharge again because I just love proving our Commander in CHIEF was completelyy disqualified fro m ANYTHING in the military.
Acording to the discharge our Dear Leader waves around which "proves" his "honorable" service, GEORGE BUSH HAS NO MILITARY QUALIFICATIONS AT ALL!! "N-O-N-E!!" Why doesn't that spell "NONE?" Yes I think it does spell "NONE" NONe whatsoever.
You know, I'd folow just about ANY plan but one thats dreamed up by someone WITH NO MILITARY QUALIFICATIONS AT ALL!!
Diid I ever bring up the fact that our VICe Dear Lader, MR "TWO DUI"S" Cheney got 5 draft deferements during the VIetnam war?
I GOT those for postting too, just ask
So re: MURTHa's plan. Just about any plan is better than the one our two convicted drunk drivers came up with--with BUsh disqualified from doing ANYTHING in the military and Cheney with no military experience at all how can you have faith in that?.
CAN you imagine that? discharged after 5+ YEARS WITH NO MILITARY QUALIFICATUIONS AT ALL AND WITH NO MEDALS ALL! And suspended from his only job the last 18 months. THe Repuiblicans try to say thats good but they have abysmally low standards (THink: Thurmond, Macarthy, Coulter, Ted Bundy, the BTK killer, Cheney)
THE only president suspended from flying AND driving!! WHAT A Fuckkup, he's not qualified to lead the way down the block

STay good
James
PS GIMP: If you ever want to shut up a conservative just show them this miserable excuse of a discharge--I got it on Favorites

[Gimpy]

James......................You certainly have a gift for putting things in proper perspective.

Let's also not forget (like the CONservatives do so with alarming regularity) that it was none OTHER than this unscrupulous piece of dog do-do (Cheney) who had/has the freaking audacity to speak out supposedly 'for the troops' when it was HE that cut the troop strength of our armed forces by 25% (and the Army by 30%) under "Daddy" Bush in 1991!

This sorry piece of $hit KNEW he was going to work for Haliburton after he left office as Defense Secretary, and he would then have more of an 'opportunity' to secure even more and more of the damn jobs that he 'eliminated' (does the word 'PRIVATIZE" sound familar??) in his last year under "Daddy" Bush's administration.

Our troops are STILL suffering from this decision.

[BLUEHAWK]

Scout -

Thanks for posting that... I hope the "Support Butts" get the message.

[Gimpy]

Jame's last post got me to thinking.


George W. Bush could have served his country in Vietnam, if he had really wanted to. Nothing indicates the military was turning away able bodied and willing people at that time. Instead the President shirked his generational duties, and hid out in the National Guard.......for awhile anyway. Then he decided to shirk his duties there as well, and simply stopped attending monthly meetings or taking his required pilot's physical. Dick Cheney too, could have served his country during the Vietnam War, but preferred requesting and receiving five deferments. As a matter of fact, there are a lot of pro-war "New" Republicans today that could have served the United States during Vietnam and other wars, but managed to avoid it.


People like Bush, Cheney, DeLay, Hastert and Frist make it all seem so easy now, to be fanatically supportive of war. Now, that it isn't their life or their children's lives on the line - it is just all too damn easy for them. They don't know what it's like to be eighteen or nineteen years old, laying awake at night looking up at the open sky and stars, and wondering if they will still be alive at the same time the following evening. Too many of these "New" Republicans don't have a freakin a clue what it's like at such a young age, to wonder if they'll ever see their parents, friends, and loved ones again. They don't know the feeling of coming home on leave, and listening to the talk and rumors of war coming, and having to watch their mother sob, and all she will say is, "I don't want you to die." Never having faced such difficult questions and situations so early in life, or in Bush and Cheney's case; never having had to confront that harsh reality, probably makes war all the more easy for them. Too damn easy!


Of course, neither Bush, Cheney, Hastert, or most of the "New" Republican Johnny-Come-Lately pro-war fanatics; has ever had to stay up every night, unable to sleep for worrying about whether or not their children will be alive when morning comes. They've never had to bury their children either. Never having had to confront such a harsh reality probably makes war easy. Too damn easy!


Then again, perhaps, it is because people like Bush and Cheney never bothered, when it was their turn to 'Saddle Up' and lace up the boots, that it is so easy for them to pervert the meaning of words like "Liberty," or "Patriotism," or "Sacrifice," or "Honor," and "Valor." For them, such words have no real meaning. For them, such things are merely a game they play, so they can better manipulate public opinion.


When it gets right down to brass tacks Bush, Cheney, and today's "New" Republicans in general, really don't understand very much about America, and why people are willing to die for this country. They don't realize that it really is about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and most of all, your 'Brother' or 'Sister' standing beside you. Probably because so few of them and their supporters have served their county, they absurdly believe people die "for their leaders".


Whether Bush and Cheney will ever have the courage to admit it or not, they lied this nation into this war in Iraq, and in the process placed nationalism above patriotism. In order to get us into this war they shredded, gutted, disgraced, and almost destroyed the Constitution. All this they've done, and in so the doing they've shamed the country and soiled the image represented by our flag.


Bush, Cheney, and many of today's "New" Republicans are/were the first to avoid military service; first to wrap themselves in that flag; first to hide behind the sacrifices of the "troops" who continue to die and get terribly injured for their mistakes(s) in judgement; and above all else, first to besmirch those that actually served America with 'honor' and 'valor'.


Bush and Cheney, two men who didn't think enough of our military men and women to actually serve with them when it was their turn............ today, because it just might serve their political ambitions (or to try and salvage their political asses!), are the first to invoke them as justification for continuing the mismangement of this ill prepared for war.


For Bush, Cheney and these "New" Republicans, it has always been easy to cheapen the sacrifice and service of others. They've done it with people from Max Cleland to John Kerry and even one of their own, John McCain. And for what did they belittle and demean the true and valiant service of others? Service rendered to nation, which neither Bush, Cheney or many "New" Republicans were willing to endure? In the name of what goal were these men dishonored? For the contemptible political power and glory of Bush, Cheney, and the "New" Republican Party!


It is no secret that the overwhelming majority of American people now believe Bush and Cheney brought this nation to war under less than honest pretense. Why wouldn't the electorate feel lied to and cheated? Aren't Bush, Cheney, and today's "New" Republicans willing, able, and capable of endangering national security by outing an undercover CIA agent; and then just as willing to lie to cover up their nefarious deed, so they can gain politically? Why then wouldn't they be willing to lie about matters all the more grave, like war?


Bush and Cheney, with a lot of help from their accomplices in the "New" Republican congress, have deceived the people into this conflict. Then, once they'd gotten the war they so badly desired, they've bungled the management and execution of it beyond imagination. The result has been unquestionably the weakening of our nation's military, our national security and defense. Our military is stretched too thin. Men and women are serving perpetual duties in combat zones without adequate equipment, and with other equipment in near disrepair. If there were to be a true threat to America's overal safety and security, the country would be ill prepared to properly respond (remember Katrina???).


The American people have been disgraced, shamed, and scarred by Bush, Cheney, and today's "New" Republican Party. The military has been used as a political pawn, and nearly driven to the brink of collapse. All of this has been done by Bush and Cheney and their "New" breed of Republicans, not in the name of protecting the country; the constitution; our way of life; or even the people.


It has been done for cheap political gain. The American people see that now, and even members of congress that at first fully supported the Bush-Cheney military objectives and ideals; they too finally, recognize the reality. Men like John Murtha that served in Vietnam; earned a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts; served 37 years in the Marine Corps Reserves and rose to the rank of Colonel. A man too, who had fully supported the Iraq War at first, he has come to see what is happening, and spoken out.


Bush, Cheney and Republicans of course, took no heed of this real warrior's admonishments. Didn't bother to inquire about why such a man would change his mind. Didn't pause for a moment to ask what the professional pro-war war "avoiders" could, or should be doing to make the current mission successful. No, they simply, immediately and as usual assaulted Colonel Murtha by their regular "bashing" methods.


Colonel Murtha, God bless him, for his part fired back, "I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."


For Bush, Cheney and many in today's "New" Republican Party, sending others to fight and die in wars birthed out of their lies and deception was just too damn easy!


They don't want to hear suggestions about how to fix the disaster they've created, they just want to campaign in hopes of re-convincing the American people to vote Republican again, in 2006. As Harry Reid said, "We're at war. We need a Commander in Chief, not a Campaigner in Chief. We need leadership from the White House, not more white-washing of the very serious issues confronting us in Iraq."


Don't expect Bush, Cheney, and today's Republicans to provide that leadership. They'll just continue to hide behind the "troops," and "the flag" and in five years time, when those troops fortunate enough to survive this war may decide to run against a "New" Republican for a seat in the House, Senate, or even to be President; these 'New' Republicans will dissemble and disgrace their service too. For Bush, Cheney, and today's Republicans; war is and was just too damn easy, and serving too damn much to ask!


The Bush/Cheney "Credo", ............"No sacrifice is too great for others to make"

[BLUEHAWK]

Here is what DoD history records as to the numerical demographics of Vietnam era veterans:

IN UNIFORM AND IN COUNTRY


* Vietnam Veterans: 9.7% of their generation.
* 9,087,000 military personnel served on active duty during the Vietnam era (August 5, 1964 - May 7, 1975).
* 8,744,000 GIs were on active duty during the war (August 5, 1964 - March 28, 1973).
* 3,403,100 (including 514,300 offshore) personnel served in the Southeast Asia Theater (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, flight crews based in Thailand, and sailors in adjacent South China Sea waters). 2,594,000 personnel served within the borders of South Vietnam (January 1, 1965 - March 28, 1973).
* Another 50,000 men served in Vietnam between 1960 and 1964.
* Of the 2,6 million, between 1 - 1.6 million (40 - 60%) either fought in combat, provided close support or were at least fairly regularly exposed to enemy attack.
* 7,484 women (6,250 or 83.5% were nurses) served in Vietnam.
* Peak troop strength in Vietnam: 543,482 (April 30, 1969).

CASUALTIES

* Hostile deaths: 47,359.
* Non-hostile deaths: 10,797.
* Total: 58,202 (includes men formerly classified as MIA and Mayaguez casualties). Men who have subsequently died of wounds account for the changing total.
* 8 nurses died - 1 was KIA.
* Married men killed: 17,539.
* 61% of the men killed were 21 or younger.
* Highest state death rate: West Virginia - 84.1 men per 100,000 males serving in Vietnam (national average 58.9 men for every 100,000 males serving in Vietnam. {Averaged in 1970}).
* Wounded: 303,704 (153,329 hospitalized + 150,375 injured requiring no hospital care).
* Severely disabled: 75,000--23,214 100% disabled; 5,283 lost limbs; 1,081 sustained multiple amputations. Amputation or crippling wounds to the lower extremities were 300% higher than in WWII and 70% higher than in Korea. Multiple amputations occurred at the rate of 18.4% compared to 5.7% in WWII

* Missing in Action: 2,338.
* POWs: 766 (114 died in captivity).

DRAFTEES AND VOLUNTEERS

* 25% of the total forces in country were draftees 648,500 as opposed to 66% of the ones in WWII.
* Draftees accounted for 30.4% (17,725) of combat deaths in Vietnam.
* Reservists killed: 5,977.
* National Guard: 6,140 served; 101 died.
* Total draftees (1965-73): 1,728,344.
* Actually served in Vietnam: 38%.
* Marine Corps draft: 42,633.
* Last man drafted: June 30, 1973

RACE AND ETHNIC BACKGROUND

* 88.4% of the men who actually served in Vietnam were Caucasian, 10.6% (275,000) were black; 1% listed as others.
* 86.3% of the men who died in Vietnam were Caucasian (includes Hispanics); 12.5% (7,241) were black; 1.2% belonged to other races.
* 170,000 Hispanics served in Vietnam; 3,070 (5.2% of total) died there.
* 86.8% of the men who were killed as a result of hostile action were Caucasian; 12.1% (5,711)were black; 1.1% belonged to other races

* 14.6% (1.530) of non-combat deaths were among blacks.
* 34% of blacks who enlisted volunteered for the combat arms.
* Overall, blacks suffered 12.5% of the deaths in Vietnam at a time when the percentage of blacks of military age was 13.5% of the total population.
* Religion of Dead: Protestant--64.4%; Catholic--28.9%; other/none--6.7%.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS

* 76% of the men sent to Vietnam were from lower middle/ working class backgrounds.
* Three-fourths had family incomes above the poverty level; 50% were from middle income backgrounds.
* Some 23% of Vietnam vets had fathers with professional, managerial or technical occupations.
* 79% of the men who served in Vietnam had a high school education or better when they entered the military service. (63% of Korean War vets and only 45% of WWII vets had completed high school upon separation).
* Deaths by region per 100,000 of population: South-31, West-29.9; Midwest-28.4; Northeast-23.5

WINNING & LOSING

* 82% of veterans who saw heavy combat strongly believe the war was lost because of lack of political will

* Nearly 75% of the public agrees it was a failure of political will, not of arms.

HONORABLE SERVICE

* 97% of Vietnam-era veterans were honorably discharged.
* 91% of actual Vietnam War veterans and 90% of those who saw heavy combat are proud to have served their country.
* 66% of Vietnam vets say they would serve again if called upon.
* 87% of the public now holds Vietnam veterans in high esteem

[Gimpy]

so what's yer freakin point?????

[catman]

Gimp...after reading, your very long and well written post, I can only wonder if all the same applies to your boy Clinton? Seems he is guilty of everything that you are charging Bush with, except that he was too big of a puss to even join the Guard wasn't he?

Trav

[SuperScout]

It seems that the historical revisionists are hard at work, stumbling all the way back to the Vietnam War. We didn't win in Vietnam by leaving, we won by destroying the Viet Cong and enough divisions of the North Vietnamese invaders to cause them to wait until 1975 to gain sufficient manpower to re-invade the South. And before you go gnashing your teeth in angst, panty-wadding, or other forms of disbelief, that assessment above was from a North Vietnamese general. Peace without liberties to enjoy them in is hollow and meaningless. A well-run prison is peaceful, but is practically absent of any liberty.

There has never been a military victory where the tactic of "cut and run" was practiced. This tactic may be in the playbook of the French military, but their sterling record of military victories is the shortest read in history. The negotiated settlement in Korea certainly hasn't produced anything even vaguely resembling peace. It is by staying and finishing wars that peace is achieved, as evidenced by the end of WWII, the end of Gulf War I, and oh yes, a little matter here in Texas, the Battle for Texas Independence. We didn't cut and run, we didn't negotiate, we won the dang thing.

And this thread is not about what GWB did or didn't do during the Vietnam War, so go peddle your documents elsewhere. And it certainly isn't about what the Republican leadership did or didn't do during the same period.

It is about the so-called new strategy about the war in Iraq, and so far, there's been a veritable paucity of supporting authorities lining up behind Murtha's proposal. It's not about what Murtha did while in the Marines; his record justifiably deserves praise. While he served admirably and honorably back then, he isn't exercising sound judgment today. If it's the best alternative the Democrats can dream up, they need to return to their Ouija boards for a better solution.

[Gimpy]

Ya got me there Trav!..........

But, are YOU willing to admit the 'BIG' difference in these two with regards to the "War" we now find ourself shouldered with in Iraq??