The War Over the War

130%?

Are they signing up their spouses when they reenlist?

Always nice to hear from the "pro-war crowd". Nice use of statistics to support your argument---130% are re-enlisting? So out of very 10 whose term of service is expiring, 13 of them re-up? Well, if you say so....Petraeus is a smart and smooth guy, but that doesn't change the fact that he is defending the indefensible. And I mean that 140%.

How typical of a prowar Republican to speak of a general being "devastating" to his own countrymen, in this case the 70 percent of us who are against the war.

Good luck in your seventeenth tour of peaceful Anbar province, guy!

When you can't win the debate attack the messenger.

130% is actual re-enlistment vs. re-enlistment goals (which is not every soldier). That explanation is for the intellectually challenged.

And speaking of phony numbers 70% against the war?

Democrats can't stand good news. Congressional approval stands at all time lows. This is why.

Of course it's also why this soldier sees democrats in Congress as his enemy.

Well, with that reenlistment rate, we'll never need a draft. That's good news.

More Time...More Patience...More Money...More Deaths...More Time...More Patience...More Money...More Deaths...More.......War Without End

While "70% of Americans may oppose the war",according to a recent NY Times article 68 percent of Americans expressed the most trust in military commanders to solve the situation in Iraq, more than the Bush Administration and Congress combined.

The gentleman's statistics are actual statistics from the Armed Forces (based on those currently serving in and on rotation out of Iraq). Just because folks who know nothing about reenlistment statistics make cute 130% jokes on a comment section of an online paper doesn't mean his point is invalid.

From Armed Forces Information Article:
Of all the corps in the Army, he said, 5th Corps has the highest re-enlistment rate. The 1st Armored Division was over 130 percent in its re-enlistment rate. The 101st Airborne Division was over 120 percent in its re-enlistment rates across the board. The 82nd Airborne Division and 4th Infantry Division had 120 and 140 percent retention, respectively.

What 130% means is that the annual reenlistment quota for the Army and USMC is being accomplished in approx 8 or 9 months. This has been consistent over the past few years, and consistently ignored by the legacy media. It's a clear sign that the morale in the Army and USMC is quite good.

And thanks for your service SSgt Bellavia.

You all are a bunch of America haters and hate the troops.

He simply meant that EXPECTED reenlistment is at 130%.

You know, those numbers you harp on? One month the Army doesn't reach its goal and you think the world is falling apart (yet ignore every month they meet or exceed expectation).

So, if you have a goal of 1000 reenlistment in Iraq and 1300 reenlist, you have a reenlistment rate of 130%.

Within four and a half years I had defeated the entire Confederate Army and reunited our country. Mr. Roosevelt had defeated the Japanese,German, and Italian armies fought on six continents. Mr. Bush has almost cleared the road from the Bagadad Airport to the city center. I'm so depressed, I think I'm going to the theater tonight and relax.

Your treatment of Petraeus' speech is much like Petraeus' treatment of Bush's war. Both are loyalty above honesty.

Jim speaks of

"a general being "devastating" to his own countrymen"

Somehow, that brings to mind this quote by Samuel Adams, who also had a habit of devastating his own countrymen:

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

I won't say it's totally appropriate to the occasion, I'll just say it came to mind.

Have a nice day.

Sarg: if you don't know by now that Generals lie, you must have been one sorry soldier. Sad Sack had it all over you as does Beetle Bailey.

The old saw: "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure." applies.

"You all are a bunch of America haters and hate the troops."

Hey crackhead - anyone ever tell you that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels?

My son Robert served on Genl. Grant's staff. Mr. Bush's children are served at the nearest bar.

What our representatives seem unable to separate in their minds or in public comments is the difference between the prosecution of a conflict and the point of the conflict. The Good General may be on the long road to success in Iraq, but to what end? And, at what cost to this country in any terms other than those selected by a self-serving executive? He has declared that Iraq is the place to fight....in so doing has led all of us, including the good general, off the track toward the long-term success of our nation.
Petraeus is doing what he's supposed to do... what we pay him to do - fight the war given to him by our president. The issue on which the Congress should focus is the definition of success...how will we know we've won....and who will care if we are attacked in the meanwhile on a second front -- not the one we chose, but the one the enemy chooses next. Who will command the next battle? Who will he command? Will he pluck Petraeus's troops out of Iraq to use somewhere else? We had better recognize that if we persist in playing pattycake instead of comitting the resources to do the job quickly we are inflicting long-term, and to my mind - unacceptable risk on our land.

Uh, Mr. Arnwine and HRP Kathy, get a grip. Its not just the democrats and the "America Haters" who are against this continued folly without an end. Its folks like myself, Republican and from a military family, who find this whole thing indefensible. Another WP article noted today, that 15 of the 18 mileposts towards progress Iraq will not be achieved because of a poor strategy going in to Iraq and no strategy to get out. Just because I and numerous others - Republican, Democrat and Independent - are asking when should the U.S. stop putting American lives at risk and spending much more of the taxpayers money than Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney ever said we would in this neocon adventure does not mean we are America haters or hate the troops. That is such a knee jerk and simplistic dismissal of true citizens demanding real leadership of the U.S.

Everyone of these soldiers re enlisting and re-re enlisting needs psyco checking.
We have no reason or right to be invading or illegally occupying Iraq.
WE the people elected those Democrats to speak for us; It's not the congress that the soldiers need to blame it's us the Americans that Don't want them there. These are the property of the USA and WE don't have any need or reason for you soldiers to be there. You will get out and find real work or as most of you will end up in PTSD clinics snivalling but in fact you re-joined because it's thrilling to kill.
(i was drafted infantry and wounded during the Tet Offensive in the Rice paddies of Viet Nam. P/H, yeah )
Anbar Province holds less than %5 of the population of Iraq = seems like you can stack the deck with just a few cards...but you will not dupe us with your caca ma me Blood for Oil.
Oh and don't get me started on the Mercenaries ... i wish them the worst.

"Within four and a half years I had defeated the entire Confederate Army and reunited our country. Mr. Roosevelt had defeated the Japanese,German, and Italian armies fought on six continents."-A.Lincoln

You fought a conventional war, Mr President. This President and his generals are fighting an unconventional war.

Do you remember your greatest fear in the beginning of April 1865 was that the confederates would not surrender but blend into the hills and fight as civilians amidst the civilian populace? Do you remember that Mr. Davis actually ordered that, and that Gen. Lee said that if he had followed Mr. Davis' orders he could've made the war last another twenty years?

You were a great President but you are a rotten corpse.

Calling Patraeus a liar without facts is foolish. The left calls its opponents "liar" so often that "liar" can now be defined as a person who makes a statement with which the left disagrees.

On September 11, does the democrat party want the American public to see it attack a war time general who was approved by the Senate 81-0, and who implemented the 'surge' strategy that many of them were calling for a year ago?

Must be some Rovian strategery...

This general did not put loyalty above honesty because they weren't in contradiction. He was both loyal to the nation he has laid down his life to serve for decades, and honest about that which he has achieved.

Those of you who choose to defame this man really need to ask yourself why it is so important to you that America rush to defeat when the generals and the diplomats are both saying victory is within reach. And don't use the 'bring the soldiers' home excuse. They don't want to come home until they prevail, that's why 130% re-enlistment debunks that argument.

Want to know why the only republicans who came out against the war are no longer running? Because the tide has turned. America is winning this war.

Of course the left's opposition to winning and its obsession with losing is why the country as a whole doesn't trust the democrats on national security. And on 9/11, that's especially bad timing.

130% re-enlistment (explained by other posters as meaning that re-enlistment goals are being exceeded). Does that mean the military will stop spending my tax pay dollars on those disingenuous ads aimed at wheedling parents into signing permission for their minor children to be sent off to kill or be killed in this pointless war?

"130% re-enlistment (explained by other posters as meaning that re-enlistment goals are being exceeded). Does that mean the military will stop spending my tax pay dollars on those disingenuous ads aimed at wheedling parents into signing permission for their minor children to be sent off to kill or be killed in this pointless war?" -MultiplePOV

You are under-brained for this discussion. 1) RE-enlistments are for those who are already in, and want to stay in. 2) "Disingenuous ads" are for ENlistments, for those who are not in but the military is trying to get in. (get a friend to count the number of letters in each word, you will see they are different.) 3) The military, to my knowledge, does not take in unemancipated minors to boot camp. 4) You forgot to say that you support the troops; those tax-grubbing, disingenuous, cradle robbing, pointless killer troops.

68% of Americans believe that military commanders will tell them the truth. It's not clear which commander(s) they have in mind - General Petraeus or his superior Admiral Fallon. These two commanders do not seem to agree on military strategy.

Also, only 5% believe that twice-elected President Bush will do so. Great. So who is leading America today? The warriors or the elected politicians? Is America Athens or Sparta?

17 year olds can enlist with parental permission.

General Petraeus' willingness, at least, to be nothing but a pawn for the White House was established when he agreed to appear with Ambassador Crocker for an hour-long exclusive interview on the nakedly-partisan FOX News Channel tonight. Someone will note that he has to follow the orders of his superiors in the chain of command, but general officers are a far cry from enlisted personnel. If he really cared about conveying something other than a GOP-friendly message to the Congress he could have at least submitted to interviews from the other networks who, I'm sure, would have also loved to have had a chance to sit down with him. However, he did not and thereby has put the lie to his apolitical status.

For those of you anti-wars types who bristle at being called anti-military: In the very small number of anti-war/anti-General posts there are several calling the General dishonest or a liar, calling the military"disingenuous," and a few who say the troops are mentally ill and/or enjoy killing (with nothing to support any claims). Clearly these posts are anti-military, as well as being the politics of personal destruction, aren't they?

And for those of you who say you support the troops, why have none of you thanked SSgt for his sacrifice and service?

It's reactions like these in this single string of comments that make the left's claims of supporting the troops so unbelievable.

"17 year olds can enlist with parental permission." -LtNOWIS

Yes, but do they start their service as minors? I'm under the impression they can't start initial training/bootcamp until they are 18.

A.Lincoln - Yes, by all means hurry to the theater

Sorry, Pentagon truth twisters, but comparing the actual number of re-enlistees to some conjured-up "goal" does not yield a reinlistment "rate," no matter what you might wish to claim. The re-enlistment rate is the number of those who re-enlist divided by the number who have the opportunity to do so in any given period. Anything that compares actual re-enlistments to somebody's trumped-up goal is a trumped-up result.
With that in mind, would anyone like to enlighten us about what the real reinlistment rate is, and how it has changed over time, adjusted for the increase in financial incentives to re-enlist?

I appreciate the service which former Army Staff Sergeant Bellavia rendered to America and thank him for that.

However, the only important question to be answered notwithstanding his gung-ho approach is this.

What political progress has been made towards sectarian reconciliation?

This debate does not stem from alleged cowardice on the part of those who oppose the present American policy in Iraq as former Staff Sergeant Bellavia stubbornly asserts. Rather, it is about recognizing that the administration's present Iraq policy is unjustified without any political progress towards sectarian reconicilation. The results of the past four years necessitate a change in the United States' strategic goals for Iraq.

130% is merely a statistic that can be manipulated. All you do is set the goal low and it's easy to hit 100% or higher.

I'm happy to know that morale of the soldiers is high. The vast majority of us wish nothing but the best for them and want them home safely. The war is bogus, Bush has consistently lied, he's flouted International Law, has wasted billions of dollars and the list goes on.

That doesn't mean we don't love and support our soldiers, we do. We love them so much we want them back safe.

For ggreen29's consideration, all three of my older siblings are completely opposed, as I am, to something which is not a war at all, but the outcome of our invasion and occupation of another sovereign country, albeit one of many brutal dictatorships around the world. Why is that relevant? My oldest brother is Col. Marc B. Powe, USA (ret), who was the Director of the Office of African Affairs within the Office of the Secretary of Defense and who was IN the Pentagon on the morning of 09/11/01. He served two tours in Vietnam and was part of Operation Desert Storm. My next older brother is Christopher L. Powe who was an artilleryman in Vietnam in 1968-1969. My other brother is Stephen L. Powe who, as did my oldest brother, graduated from Texas A&M University and served as an Army infantry officer. His youngest son is currently in 29 Palms with his Marine Reserve unit being readied for deployment to Iraq. I spent 30 years as a Texas police officer and I'm quite unimpressed with the notion that Americans who recognize our presence in Iraq as one of the great debacles in the history of our great nation are, ipso facto, anti-military. That is a very ancient and very debased talking point from the "stab-in-the-back-theory" Republicans who like to ignore the fact that President Nixon got us out of Vietnam and claim that it was dirty, anti-military hippies who kept us from "winning" that pointless conflict.

Baloney. Almost 4,000 Americans are dead because of the Iraq war who would be living otherwise. The surge has led to deaths of servicemen for nothing. If people want to protect oil, that let the billionaries with the hedge funds finance the mercenaries.

David, I do thank you for your service at the same time I apologize for being unable to reverse an ill-conceived policy.
In our country the military does the bidding of the civilian leadership. The military has been sent on a fool's errand, and although they (you) have acted valiantly and done so with excellent unit cohesion (130% of goals) despite the lack of real,sustainable progress, it doesn't undo the folly of our murky mission. General Petraeus is undoubtedly a good and intelligent soldier who was hired to do a job for which he was offered too few resources, too late in the game. I understand your loyalty to your leader, I can't understand Petraeus' loyalty to his, especially when it puts you at such terrible risk for such questionable gain.

How fortunate for Bellavia that he is a former Army Staff Sargaent. I can't say as I blame him for not re-enlisting. With the delusional leadership we have staying the course, my thoughts and prayers are for those still trapped in that hell hole with no end in sight.

Okay. Here is a figure we should consider carefully. We are spending somewhere in the neighborhood of $700 billion each year on the military. That is $400 billion more than when Clinton left office. This money is not even buying us enough soldiers to staff our army in Iraq at the current level, hence there will be a draw down next year before April. How can we maintain this military spending binge without an enormous increase in taxes, or increasingly dangerous levels of public debt, or both? Why does no one consider this question?

I also don't care if our military men and women want to reenlist at a "130%" level. The last time I checked we were still a democracy not run by the opinions of our military forces. It is a little like the motorcycle helmet law. Just because some fool wants to drive around without a helmet doesn't mean I should have to pay for his debilitating head injuries for the rest of my life. Sometimes you have to save people from themselves.

Sergeant:

Last time you visited Iraq? Any other area
other than Anbar? Don't you think we should bring back the draft? If not, where do we get the military for 5 more years?

What method did you use for your stats?

Did you see Alive Day last night on HBO? What did you think about that?

Enlistments are up in our neck of the woods. My son will be offered $41,000 (today's money) If on deployment while
his separation date arrives, that will go to $61,000. That is what my 2nd one will get (if he decides to)because he will be deployed on his anniversary. They are in are very high skilled MOS.
It is very very difficult for these young kids to say no to that kind of money.

I noticed the Ssgt signed as "former".
Guess he was not in the numbers.

I also know when my kids enlisted (before the Iraq invasion) there were no bonus's. Today the Army is giving a $20,000. There are also ex cons being recruited, former drug addicts and actually anyone who will sign. Very sad.

I really don't know with all that cash incentive if this should be called a "voluntary" army or corps, maybe "dollar induced" would be more appropriate.
For those who are not happy with the war or it's (mis)management, check out
votevets.org

How on earth could anyone want the terrorist thugs who are fighting us in Iraq to win? Yet, that's what many of you are doing. At every turn you attack our leaders and our cause, while never attacking the people who want to kill us. When will you get it that these people will fight us where ever we are, and anyplace we resist them. Probably 20 million people died during World War II. It was probably our fault for attacking the Nazis.

"Fearlessly and confidently presenting graphics and supporting data..."

Wow. That DOES take courage, doesn't it? Especially when the numbers are fake (and if they aren't fake, then why keep the methodology a secret?)

Power corrupts, and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely...

I think your post misses the point. Yes, the increase of 30,000 men and women is having a marginal impact on some of the security issues in and around Iraq, but that wasn't the state purpose of the escalation. I for one never doubted that our military has been handling its business on the battlefield (that's what they are trained to do). This was about the IRAQIS. The goal was to put more of our soldiers in harm's way so that they could finally achieve their own stated political goals. We've done our part, the Iraqis haven't done their part.

Talking about anything else really misses the Administration's stated purpose for the escalation and allows them to SHIFT the stated goal of our continued presence in Iraq for another 6 months.

"The re-enlistment rate is the number of those who re-enlist divided by the number who have the opportunity to do so in any given period. Anything that compares actual re-enlistments to somebody's trumped-up goal is a trumped-up result." -Statistician

No it isn't. It is the number of people who want to/are eligible to reenlist divided by the number of people the military needs. In theory, with many people on 3 year enlistments, 1/3 of the military each year is eligible for reenlistment. By your theory, this is the denominator; in reality, the denominator is the number of people the military needs.

A reenlistment goal is to the best my knowledge, calculated for nearly every pay grade and for every occupational specialty. It is determined by looking at the current number in each grade/specialty and estimating the number of retirements, releases, promotions upward, promotions from below, demotions, deaths, etc. Each service then figures out how many in each grade and specialty must be reenlisted in order to maintain the proper manpower level in that grade of that specialty, for nearly every grade in every specialty. Obviously calculations are done in one fiscal year for the next.

An example: Let's look at bulk fuelers at the sergeant level. 200 are ending their enlistment this year, and thus are eligible for reenlistment (assuming no courts-martial in their jackets). The USMC only needs 50 to reenlist. 100 apply for reenlistment. The enlistment rate is 200%, because the USMC has twice as many applicants as they need. It is not, as you surmise, 50% because only half want to reenlist.

As usual, the numbers and goals are based on what the service needs, and not what the privates want.

I can't improve on the comment of Diana Powe. FOX=GOP=Bush/Cheney. By giving FOX the post-testimony interview, Petraeus puts himself at risk of appearing to be Gonzales II.

The Nazis finally made it into a post. I was beginning to wonder for awhile. We WERE fighting terrorists in Afghanistan with some real success. In fact, we might even have captured Osama bin-Laden, except that suddenly most of our resources were diverted to invade and occupy a country which HAD NOT ATTACKED US AS AL-QAEDA HAD. Osama Bin-Laden was, in effect, trying to murder my oldest brother in the Pentagon that day and I personally would have really preferred if we had stayed with what Ford Motor Company likes to call "Job One". Too bad our leaders didn't think the terrorists that had attacked us were sufficiently important to do the job properly.

As I mentioned a few days ago, the surge was like American soldiers lifing up the truck called Iraq so the Iraqi government can change the tire. The good general has testified that the truck has been lifted (enough at least). But the Iraqi goverment is not changing the tire. So please understand that it is not the intention of the "anti-war crowd" to criticize the soldiers doing the lifting as much as it is the obvious advice to not bother if Iraqis exert equal effort.
A recent poll correlates this well. Most Iraqis think we are lifting the "truck" to steal the other wheels. We lost the hearts and minds of Iraqi before the occupation and have only made things worse. I feel that Iraq is ready on its own terms to fix its problems. We just need to leave.
They will never be a threat to us. Mission accomplished. Thanks to the American soldier for doing their job. Let us never send them to fight "non wars" again.

Hilarious!!!

"I'm quite unimpressed with the notion that Americans who recognize our presence in Iraq as one of the great debacles in the history of our great nation are, ipso facto, anti-military." -Diana Powe

You seem to ignore the anti-militarists in your midst. The following are references to the General or the military in general, in this post alone:

"loyalty above honesty." -Fishingriver

"if you don't know by now that Generals lie" -William

"patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels" -anon

"needs psyco checking." & "in fact you re-joined because it's thrilling to kill." -Darwin26

"disingenuous ads" -MultiplePOV

"a pawn for the White House" & "the lie to his apolitical status" -Diana Powe

Do you not sense a remarkable streak of anti-militarism in most of these comments. Extreme conclusions based on no facts, or the skimpiest of facts? Do Darwin26's comments apply to your siblings? Are your siblings as disingenuous as MultiplePOV believes their ads are? Were your brothers pawns for the Johnson/Nixon/Bush White House, with no merit to their existence or beliefs? And yet many (NOT MOST) Democrats heap scorn on people they've never met, simply because they wear a uniform. And let's not forget one of Gen. McCaffrey's first encounters with a Clinton staffer who said "I don't talk to people in uniform." And of course Pres. Clinton himself, at one time loathing the military.

My guess is that a significant slice of the anti-war folks are anti-military, and many, BUT NOT MOST of the registered Democrats are. The anti-military comments come up too often for them to be a sliver of the populace. And you anti-war folks will be known by your loudest spokespeople, and tarred by their brush, just as we are occasionally tarred by the nuts among us.

HRPKathy,

what is the victory that is within reach?

dogzoe

The "anti-military" meme is nothing more than a meaningless ploy to divert the crowd's attention from the fact that our presence in Iraq is a disaster despite the very real and very painful sacrifices of those who have served, are serving or will serve there. For those who absolutely INSIST that demonstrating full and complete support for those who have made some of the most painful sacrifices in Iraq is THE REASON we should only listen to those who want us to remain in Iraq waiting for some elusive "victory" I have five words - Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

How on earth could anyone want the terrorist thugs who are fighting us in Iraq to win? Yet, that's what many of you are doing. At every turn you attack our leaders and our cause, while never attacking the people who want to kill us. When will you get it that these people will fight us where ever we are, and anyplace we resist them. Probably 20 million people died during World War II. It was probably our fault for attacking the Nazis.

Posted by: Tom | September 10, 2007 11:23 PM

Where have you been Tom??? Iraq is a civil war. Afghanistan/Pakistan is were the terrorists are. The coup they broke up last week in Germany WAS NOT FROM IRAQ....Turn of Faux news.
Try www.McClatchydc.com for unbiased news.
The good news?? Your views are the dwindling 27%!!
Semper Fi

Petraeus will probably regret using the mythic 130% best left to sports casters(w/or w/out counting "bulk fuelers at sergeant level")in the quiet of his hotel room. In the quest for reasoned dialogue, I note that the anti-warrors call those who speak for the war, "liars." Not to be outdone, the pro-war sopeakers call those who oppose the war, "cowards" and "traitors," terms oft used by Sean and Bill who never had the priveledge of serving in either peace or war in the "forces that defend our country and protect our way of life." Name calling is not a useful way of determining how to get out of "another nice mess [you] got me in." Scab picking about the validity of why we got in is not very productive. All of this will not end until Moqtada Al Sadr completes his coup (4 years or less) and ends up with a Shiite theocracy next door to "oil-rich" Saudi Arabia. How do we avoid that? Speak up liars and cowards.

What political progress has been made towards sectarian reconciliation?...The results of the past four years necessitate a change in the United States' strategic goals for Iraq.
-flyfysher

History is a great teacher. This isn't fast food. Be patient. Our own country (the US) didn't spring forth from the heads of our forefathers fully formed.

They deliberately kicked the issue of slavery down the road. It wasn't until almost a century later that the issue was finally dealt with, but only because a civil war forced it on the government(s).

Then the issue of equal treatment for non-white men wasn't resolved for another century.

Another issue, the right for women to vote took a century and a half to address.

And some people are cranky because Iraq isn't upright, modern and fully functional after a few years.

Our own revolutionary war took longer than this war has (Hint, Hint!). Didn't 15 to 20% of the former colonialists leave after our independence and head to Canada? Be patient.

When the Iraqi Kurds were first liberated they had the opportunity to set an example for the world; instead they set upon each other in a grim and depressing display of clan violence, vendettas, and power struggles (sound familiar?). But the press, having the attention span of Bill Clinton, quickly turned away, and everyone forgot about the bloody feuds.

But now, miraculously, the Kurds are the exemplary tribe of Iraq. I have no idea how they did it, but there they are. If the Kurds can do that in 10 years, shouldn't we give the Iraqis at least the same amount of time? It's not like they're taking 150 years to let women vote. Or two centuries to treat "All Men" equally. Be patient.

Or compare the Iraqi progress to that of Kosovo. Kosovo is still a colony of the UN empire. The place is still run by UN bureaucrats. They've had no constitution, no elections, no interim representative government. They still haven't figured out if Kosovo is going to be independent, codependent, or fully dependent; the UN recommends more contributions from rich countries for the salaries of those hard-working bureaucrats who haven't accomplished anything and don't even have a plan yet. Kosovars just wait. The Iraqis are way ahead of them.

Bosnia: Elections a few years ago INCREASED ethnic divisions. The Serbs were Serbier, the Bosnians Bosniar, and the Croats (or are they Montenegrans?) were ______ier. Iraq is way, way ahead of them.

Be patient. It'll turn out well. Unless we quit.

"That doesn't mean we don't love and support our soldiers, we do. We love them so much we want them back safe." -1FastHoo

To which I type:

"A ship in port is safe, but that's not what ships are built for." -Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper

I'll trust you to understand the connection.

But Just in Case:! Do we love firemen so much that we never want them to enter a burning building? Do we love police so much that we never want them to leave the station? Do we love doctors and nurses so much that we never want them to touch a sick person? Do we love our students so much that we'll never test them lest they fail...oh, wait, we're doing that...so just pay attention to the other examples.

"what is the victory that is within reach?" -dogzoe

Haven't you been paying attention!? Have you been living in a cave!?

An Iraq like Germany (oh those people are too militaristic, democracy will never work there) or Japan (oh those people are too bound to the Emperor, democracy will never stick there).

Fortunately for those countries and the region in which they reside, Democrats from the 40s and 50s had much better vision and patience than today's Dems.

"I really don't know with all that cash incentive if this should be called a "voluntary" army or corps, maybe "dollar induced" would be more appropriate." -marinemomof3

This is not new. In the early 80s, at least, USMC was giving multiples of 2, 3, 4 for certain occupational specialties. The multiple meant the number of thousands per year for each year of the reenlistment. So a reenlistment for 4 years in a specialty with a multiple of 4 meant that the Marine was going to get $16,000! in 1983/4 dollars! The "unskilled" infantry (and some other "specialties") had multiples of zero.

"In fact, we might even have captured Osama bin-Laden, except that suddenly most of our resources were diverted to invade and occupy a country which HAD NOT ATTACKED US AS AL-QAEDA HAD." -Diana Powe

You're wrong on two points. There was no drawdown of forces in Afghan for Iraq. A number of Generals (you know, the apolitical ones that you don't call names or hate) have attested to this and independent sources have confirmed as best as possible. The number of forces in Afghan increased throughout the pre-war period. I'm sorry I can't cite sources for you, but I'm apparently not using the right search terminology.

Iraq did attack us, numerous times during the Clinton administration. Saddam also tried to assassinate the first Pres Bush. (Have you been hiding in the same cave as dogzoe, only longer?) Saddam was one of the major supporters of terrorism, both inside and outside the middle east. If Saddam was not a threat to the US, why did Clinton spend most of the last 3 years of his Presidency bombing Iraq? Why did Clinton sign the legislation, supported by almost all Dem. leadership, that made removing Saddam a clear part of US foreign policy. Why was Clinton's Sec. Def. Cohen on NBC's Sunday show w/ Russert, scaring everyone w/ a bag of sugar, saying that if Saddam had this much anthrax he could kill everyone in the US if applied "properly." "Bush's War" in Iraq is a logical extension of "Clinton's War" with Saddam.

Remember, history is a great teacher. Don't forget what happened (not a Sept 11 reference, just a history in general, get out of the cave reference.)

"I have five words - Walter Reed Army Medical Center." -Diana Powe

I know it's late but is this the best you can do? The US military has accomplished more in Iraq with fewer casualties than in any other US miltary endeavor. I suspect it may be a world feat, with the US taking an entire country and reshaping it with a remarkably small number of casualties.

Yes, yes, I know if you're one of the casualties it's not small, but by that level of thinking Sept 11, 2001 was an ordinary day 'cause I didn't get killed...what's the hullabaloo about?

Are modern Dems only brave in hindsight? There were more casualties on a single day on June 6, 1944, and all we got for that was a strip of beach. During the Battle of the Bulge there were 3,000 casualties a day for a month! Iwo Jima, Tarawa, Guam, maybe even the Kasserine Pass all accomplished less at a greater cost...and those were just SINGLE battles or campaigns.

By today's Dem.'s standards WW2 was a failure, wasn't it? Have you no sense of history? Be patient

The failure of Iraq is 100% the fault of the American people. Washington merely did what the American people wanted; that is how a representative democracy works. (Read "Iraq: Our Responsibility as Voters" @ http://theclearsky.blogspot.com/#2388016634778233564 )

In accordance with the wishes of the American people, Washington sent a too small military force of 170,000 Western soldiers to invade and occupy Iraq. The result is a horrific disaster. Of the 4 million Iraqis displaced by this disaster, 2 million are refugees who have fled Iraq.

Washington told the Iraqis to build a liberal Western democracy, but they failed. The failure is due to the fact that the Iraqis have almost no experience with Western values. What else should we reasonably expect?

While Americans from opposite ends of the political spectrum bicker about who shares the blame for the failure of Iraq, the 2 million Iraqi refugees are losing precious months and years of their lives. The refugees live without hope in hostile lands.

Yet, most Americans -- who are 100% responsible for the Iraqi fiasco -- do not care about the refugees. Washington has accepted only a few hundred refugees into the USA. By contrast, the Swedes -- who opposed the Iraqi war -- have accepted 18,000 refugees.

If an Iraqi refugee has lived as a refugee for more than a year, then she is morally justified in seeking violent revenge against Americans. We Americans turned a dysfunctional Saddam-dominated Iraq into an unliveable society. Even though we Americans have the means (e.g., a military draft to supply the 400,000 soldiers that are needed to restore order to Iraq) to stabilize Iraq, we refuse to take the necessary steps to do so.

If you are an Iraqi refugee and you decide to kill Americans, then please (1) abide by the Geneva Convention and (2) kill only American voters. Only American voters are responsible for the actions of the American government. Americans who do not have the right to vote are not responsible for the actions of Washington. In particular, American children are innocent and should not be killed. However, any American with the right to vote is a legitimate target of military attack.

Any reasonable Westerner (like the ones in Europe) would never claim that Americans killed by Iraqi refugees are innocent. Ethically speaking, we Americans (or anyone else) cannot simply wreck a society and then ignore the victims of the wreckage. We have an obligation to accept all 2 million Iraqi refugees into the USA.

If we refuse to immediately restore normalcy to the lives of the Iraqi refugees (by either admitting them into the USA or sending 400,000 soldiers to Iraq to immediately stabilize it), then we American voters are legitimate targets of military attack.

I'll bid you goodnight and godspeed, and leave you with a few quotes:

"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events." -- Sir Winston Churchill

Bush, I believe, understood the consequences of war fever; he's never said this was going to be easy or quick. All those Dem.s who voted for the war and are now against it are the ones who failed to understand history or war...and I believe they are the real chickenhawks; they sent people to a war they apparently didn't really believe in and are feeling faint now that they've seen a few casualties.

And from the King of Camelot:

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge--and more."

He'd have to be a Repub. now...or Joe Lieberman; cause the Dem.s are definitely not that fond of liberty anymore. Those lines would now have to be:

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill...and more." It loses a lot, doesn't it? The Dem.s have lost a lot.

Goodnight all...and be patient...and know history.

(Posted twice cuz I forgot a sig...anticipating deletion of the first)

I'll bid you goodnight and godspeed, and leave you with a few quotes:

"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events." -- Sir Winston Churchill

Bush, I believe, understood the consequences of war fever; he's never said this was going to be easy or quick. All those Dem.s who voted for the war and are now against it are the ones who failed to understand history or war...and I believe they are the real chickenhawks; they sent people to a war they apparently didn't really believe in and are feeling faint now that they've seen a few casualties.

And from the King of Camelot:

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge--and more."

He'd have to be a Repub. now...or Joe Lieberman; cause the Dem.s are definitely not that fond of liberty anymore. Those lines would now have to be:

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill...and more." It loses a lot, doesn't it? The Dem.s have lost a lot.

Goodnight all...and be patient...and know history.

I love the military mind when they call peace loving people the "anti-war set". Leave it to the hammer.

Interesting that the most important facts to the "Let's just lose" crowd are their own feelings. Juvenile narcissism cross bred with insinuation, scorn and third rate word play. Do you never weary of cynicism?

Before you anti-US/Military/War types start blowing off steam due to the Left's failure in convincing the US of A of the benefits of a cut & run strategy, please let's have a show of hands for those who have served our country either in the military and/or public sector? And please also list the awards/honours bestowed upon yourselves as a result of that service? Anyone? Need I say more? All a bunch of good-for-nothing dole addicts! In light of the fact that the author has been recommended for the Medal of Honor, you code-pinko's please have some decency/pride and stop insulting the intelligence of a real-life American Hero with your baseless arguments. But I doubt you gutless traitors even know the meaning of these words anyway!

Bellavia and Petraeus took the same statistics class.

Supporting our military with love and whatever it takes of money while narrowing our focus on positive inferences while disregarding negative facts, shushing those who point out problems would make sense if our military were dying of a terminal illness. Is it not a living mighty force, our pride and legacy to pass in as best shape as we can to our children and them to theirs? Abetting the squandering misuse of our military to the breaking point out of mistaken deference to those responsible is an abdication of civic duty. To cheer for their empty victories is pathetic.

I can only think that this war could be close to being over if the politicos in Washington supported the troops both financially and morally. It seems that not so very long ago the actions and words of today would have been considered traitorous and there would have been prosecutions. We, as a country, are in danger of losing the very freedoms we have fought so long and hard to protect by trying to be politically correct instead of being morally correct and also using some common sense. Why don't we put aside personal and political agendas and just do what is best for America and Americans?

Another example of why the current crop of military personell can not be relied upon to provide a truthful and honest assesment of the situation in Iraq. They all appear to be totally corrupted by their unquestioned support of all aspects of the extremist Conservitave agenda. It is a sad day when our military forces and their leaders disreguard their sworn duty to the country, and instead choose to play political games. You guys might do better spending more time on trying to defeat the insurgents in Iraq and less time trying to defeat your fellow Americans.

"I have five words - Walter Reed Army Medical Center." -Diana Powe

I know it's late but is this the best you can do? The US military has accomplished more in Iraq with fewer casualties than in any other US miltary endeavor. I suspect it may be a world feat, with the US taking an entire country and reshaping it with a remarkably small number of casualties.

Since the reference went over someone's head, let me be more direct. One of the tactics used by those who are in favor of our continuing presence in Iraq is to accuse those who are not of "not supporting the troops" or being "anti-military". These accusations are just that. They are simply a way of directing attention away from the actual issues of why we are in Iraq and what we should do from here.

However, as I wrote, if someone insists we delegitimize everyone who fails to fully and completely support our armed forces, most especially those who have actually sacrificed themselves by serving in Iraq as my nephew is about to do, then we need to delegitimize the Administration. Their callous and gratuitous use of service members as theatrical props for their political agenda was fully revealed by the scandal of care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center which was the subject of a series of stories in The Washington Post.

Citing the glorious "feat" of invading and occupying Iraq with so "fewer casualties than in any other US military endeavor" is highly insulting to the more than 20,000 service members who have been wounded. Many, perhaps a majority, of these wounded would have been killed by explosions that modern equipment and battlefield care saved them from. However, that means that many of them are now blind, maimed or suffer brain injuries that have left them permanently disabled. Meanwhile, the Department of Veterans Affairs fails to be funded at levels commensurate with the mission that has been given to them by the military adventurism of the non-combat veteran and the non-veteran who serve as President and Vice-President of the United States.

As for these specious historical analogies to the American Revolution, the American Civil War and World War II, they are simply ludicrous. The geographical area in the Middle East called Iraq was an artificial creation of the Western Powers in 1920 that had next to nothing to do with the ethnic and religious characteristics of the people there. The creation of Iraq was not any kind of expression of the will of those people who were designated as Iraqis by the West. They were, and largely remain, as afterthoughts to all the aspirations of those who chose to "take" and "reshape" their country in March 2003.

After the Western-imposed monarchy was overthrown it ultimately came to a brutal and ruthless dictator, Saddam Hussein, to impose his notion of Iraqi unity on a highly non-unified population. With his regime overthrown, all those tribal, ethnic and religious animosities could be free to manifest themselves which is exactly what then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney correctly cited as the reason why we didn't "go on to Baghdad" in 1991. It is just that reality that prompted George Will to end his column in today's Washington Post with these lines:

After more than four years of war, two questions persist: Is there an Iraq? Are there Iraqis?

Invading Iraq had nothing to do with responding to the terrorism of Al Qaeda. After the attacks of 09/11/01 the Administration made capturing Osama bin-Laden a proper and worthwhile priority. Then, they decided to reject that priority and go into Iraq for reasons they knew or reasonably should have known were false and, having decided on this course, ignored those, including their own State Department, who correctly warned of the outcome that we see today.

Thanks Sergeant. My son is in Fallujah right now with 2/6; he is probably breathing some of the same dust you did. Please drop by www.captainsjournal.com. I'd like to interview you at some point. My very best.