One of Bill Kristol’s New York Times‘s columns has been republished on the Guardian web site. You can read it if you like, although to be frank I didn’t get past the blurb — “It is beyond Democrats to concede that Bush’s troop surge has been a substantial success.” Of course, it is beyond a neocon to concede that the principal objective of the surge has not been accomplished. The surge was supposed to buy the Iraqi government some time to pull itself together. Instead, the political situation in Iraq continued to deteriorate, surge or no surge.
But what I really want to call your attention to is one of the comments, which doesn’t have a direct link. “Hotbed” writes,
But let’s do the math:
1) The World Health Organization says that in the three years after the invasion 151,000 Iraqis died in random violence.
2) During Saddam’s 24 years in power, he started the Iran-Iraq and Gulf wars (in which about one million people died) and exterminated at least 500,000 of his own people.
Let’s work out the annual averages:
62,500 violent deaths per year under Saddam
50,000 violent deaths per year under the occupation.So the latter figure will have to rise substantially, and continue for another 20 years, for the anti-war lobby to have been “right” about Iraq, Bush etc.
Never mind that Hotbed is using a lowball estimate of deaths per year under the occupation and a high estimate of deaths under Saddam. Never mind 3,923 dead U.S. soldiers as of today. Never mind that over 4 million Iraqis have been displaced. Never mind that the Middle East is now less stable than it was before. Never mind that the cost so far is approaching $486 billion. Never mind that the invasion of Iraq served absolutely no vital interest of the United States. Hotbed has the numbers! We’re a success!
In the recent “Morality and Wingnuts” post, I wrote about right-wing blogger reaction to the New York Times article on violent crimes committed by veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead of expressing sympathy and concern for veterans who lacked support for war trauma, the righties went into big-time defensive mode and accused the New York Times of bashing vets.
I wrote,
This blogger (who tags his post “NY Times liars scoundrels scumbagsâ€) calculates that 121 homicides among the number of returned veterans is actually below the national homicide rate of the general population — “one-half to less than one-third as much.†But the blogger calculates that there are 1.99 million Iraq/Afghanistan veterans, and I don’t believe that’s accurate. (Note to wingnuts: By saying “I don’t believe†I acknowledge that I don’t know what the number is and could be mistaken.) …
… I would like to know how the real homicide rate of the vets compares to non-vets of the same age group, particularly among males, who commit nearly 90 percent of homicides. It’s possible that the rate among the vets is pretty close to average.
Michelle Malkin provides a correction. According to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the actual number of discharged veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan is 749,932, not 1.99 million. If there were 121 homicides among that number of people (the New York Times considers 121 to be a minimum, not the actual total), then the homicide rate would be 16.1 per 100,000. This is lower than the going homicide rate of 20 per 100,000 rate for white males aged 18-24. But some of the vets are older, and some are women, and the 121 is probably a low number. As I said, it’s possible the homicide rate of discharged veterans is pretty close to average for that demographic group.
And numbers don’t show us what individuals are going through. When you look at individual cases as the New York Times did, it does appear that some of those homicides were related to war trauma. The point of the NY Times article was not that veterans by nature are homicidal maniacs, but that there is inadequate screening and support for post-traumatic stress and veterans and their families are suffering for it.
But in Rightie World, pointing out that veterans have all the vulnerabilities normally associated with being human is bashing the troops. Can’t have that.
And if they can produce some numbers to show that there’s no problem, then there’s no problem, never mind the real-world experience of actual flesh-and-blood people. See Malkin’s headline: “Hey, NYT: 99.98 percent of all discharged Iraq and Afghanistan vets have not committed or been charged with homicide!”
From the New York Times story that has Malkin in her usual steaming outrage mode (I swear, that girl is going to wear out her nervous system one of these days) —
About a third of the victims were spouses, girlfriends, children or other relatives, among them 2-year-old Krisiauna Calaira Lewis, whose 20-year-old father slammed her against a wall when he was recuperating in Texas from a bombing near Falluja that blew off his foot and shook up his brain.
A quarter of the victims were fellow service members, including Specialist Richard Davis of the Army, who was stabbed repeatedly and then set ablaze, his body hidden in the woods by fellow soldiers a day after they all returned from Iraq.
And the rest were acquaintances or strangers, among them Noah P. Gamez, 21, who was breaking into a car at a Tucson motel when an Iraq combat veteran, also 21, caught him, shot him dead and then killed himself outside San Diego with one of several guns found in his car. …
…The Times’s analysis showed that the overwhelming majority of these young men, unlike most civilian homicide offenders, had no criminal history.
Statistics say these episodes are not a problem, say the wingnuts. Stuff happens.
Update: Enjoy the video —
Does the term “going postal” mean anything? Hint: what quasi-governmental agency is required to give preferential treatment to vets?
The only othe place that I know of where Bush war vets are getting “preferential” treatment is in the growth of homelessness. That, undoubtably is due to the fact that they are re-integrated back into society so well (sad snark).
In a just world, one would expect the rate of homicides by returned veterans to be substantially lower than their demographic, since, in order to serve, they would have passed a screening for criminal background and mental health, and had substantial training in following rules, when and when not to use weapons, etc. Presumably, this would decrease the number likely to resort to criminal violence. Further, if our system worked properly, they would be receiving assistance upon returning to civilian life, including a support structure that would further decrease their likelihood to offend and intervene before a homicide.
Who cares if Hotbed’s using a lowball estimate? He’s basically saying we can do whatever we want, invade whomever we want and kill whomever we want, as long as we kill at least one less person than the last guy. Beating Saddam by one justifies current American foreign policy. I think “U.S.: not as murderous as Saddam” isn’t exactly the ideal slogan and standard level the United States ought to have, though it may be sufficient to the wingnuts if they’re going to continue to justify the Bush Administration’s actions.
“It is beyond Democrats to concede that Bush’s troop surge has been a substantial successâ€
Boy it’s hard to get past that. This may be the new talking point trap for the General election. Eventually (I should say hopefully) the reason for the “surge†success will make its way to mainstream media, maybe. The unfortunate fact is that the “surge†has been more a surge of money to our enemies of 1 year ago. The bad guys that were blowing everything up 12 months ago are now mostly on our payroll. And when the Democratic nominee is forced to eventually point this unfortunate fact out, the republican retort will be: “It is beyond Democrats to concede that Bush’s troop surge has been a substantial successâ€, perhaps with the addition of something like “And now they do not even give our brave troops credit for the surgeâ€.
It was this sort of political/military Tomfoolery that got Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, Biden, etc to vote “yes†for the Iraq war. Hopefully they won’t get fooled again.
Nice video link: Boy, Bill Kristol really is an unfortunate person.
Just in case any of your readers wonder about the music on your video link, Here’s the lyrics, you’ll have to find the beat.
http://www.lyricsdepot.com/public-enemy/dont-believe-the-hype.html
Make no mistake “Hotbed” isn’t just spouting numbers. The neoCONS know they have lost this one and the troops will be coming home He’s firing the first salvo for the ‘stab in the back’ defense. You know, ” We had this war won until the Dems stabbed us in the back and brought the war to an end. Just as we were seeing light at the end of the tunnel. (I threw that last part in for a gratuitous historical reference.)
You are misreading and mischaracterizing the NYTimes piece on returning vets and crime.
The Times has given enough cases of poor reporting and obvious bias over the past few years.
But this case isn’t one of them.
The article DOES establish – or at least report from several sources – causal links between specific crimes and the experience of specific vets, using professional counselors,family members and vets themselves as sources.
The article makes clear there isn’t any easily obtainable scientific studies showing that combat vets as a whole are more prone to homicidal violence – because of the combat – after returning home.
The article does document a goodly (or badly) number of returning vets who committed or were charged with homicide in the past six years; a good portion of them committed crimes connected to, even caused in part by, their combat experience, according to the vets, their families, courts, law enforcement and counselors, according to the article. It’s a valid human interest story. The article makes clear it’s not broadbrushing all vets.
The article is not condemning of vets, but sympathetic to them, about the cost of war on the brave who do the fighting. The article itself reports the lack of statistics, or agreement from Pentagon officials on the Times reporting of this. Readers can see that and take it all into account.
The statistical question, as usual, is complicated. The one figure given, of an 89 percent increase of homicidal violence among post-war vets versus pre-war vets, says something. But it’s not entirely clear what. It may be mostly news accounts being more specific post-war than before.
But the reflexive response to compare the military members with the general population’s homicide rate is a little wrong-headed. It’s the wrong question.
The military is an elite cross section of the population; those 18-24 in the military, especially in it to the hilt of combat, are the most disciplined, brave, intelligent, etc. of their demographic cohort.
So year in, year out, the crime stats for the military members of the 18-24 cohort are certain to be a minor percentage of the general population’s crime stats in that age cohort. Heck, if for no other reason than for much of the time, the soldiers are behind barbed wire, in a barracks, being awakened at 5 a.m. for full-pack marches. Kind of cuts down on tendencies to crime, don’t it?
But the without-argument disproportion between military types and the general population would mean anytime the crime stats for any group of vets even approaches the level of the general population, it probably signals a big relative increase in crime among vets. Makes sense to me.
But the real question is, do vets who have gone through combat tend to show higher homicide rates than comparable vets who have not undergone combat?
Both rates, I will wager, are far below the general population’s rate for the same demographic cohort.
And let’s not get stuck on stupid. Don’t miss the forest for the trees.
Nobody can argue that war is not brutal and therefore has a brutalizing effect on those who experience it.
By definition, we are asking soldiers to go to places where unspeakable things happen, as a matter of course; in the nature of war is horror. A certain number of those who fight wars are going to be deeply wounded spiritually and mentally; that’s an unavoidable fact, attested to throughout history.
So if we send 500,000 to war, we should expect some hundreds, maybe thousands, by definition, to be so damaged by the brutality inherent in war – taking others’ lives, sometimes in really bad ways, and seeing comrades killed, sometimes in the worst of ways – that they are going to be more prone to violence and crime and other dysfunction in civilian life.
That doesn’t seem like an anti-war statement to me. Just a frank acceptance of what we are asking when we send people off to war.
So part of our job as a society is to do what we can to help all veterans come home and adjust from being warriors to well-living citizens. Part of the way to do that is to recognize the problems that are out there – sometimes through journalism – and respond to them in ways we can, collectively and individually, privately and publicly.
The NYTimes piece reported accurately on a number – 121 is “lots,” if one of them is your son, your brother, your husband, your comrade – of returning combat vets troubled enough by their war experience that in about half the cases, at least, it appears to have contributed to them allegedly committing homicide.
Pretty hard to argue with that.
The piece persuasively argues that the 121 is a minimum number; seems to make sense, especially in light of what we all can agree are all sorts of other violent crimes that aren’t part of the investigation.
Just because military vets are an elite section of our population doesn’t mean that fighting wars doesn’t have a well-known and maybe measurable (even if no one yet is measuring) negative effect on many of them.
Can we agree it’s too many of them?
So even if the crime stats among retiring war vets remains far below the comparable stats for the general population – and I’ll wager they do – they also could show a significant increase from “normal rates†among military members, past and present.
Statistics, of course, are not the only way to tell the truth. Anecdotal evidence is not non-evidence, just another form of evidence.
On another point: Whether it was wise or good of the NYTimes to report on this type of story while we are at war is a tough call.
Some sort of restraint should be practiced by the news media when we are at war.
Who would agree with dissecting the success, body by body, of every D-Day decision, on D-Day plus 1, while the boys are in the midst of it and morale was in the balance, simply to scoop the competition, not not hold the news?
Maybe today, reporting on the problems of combat vets returning from Iraq and Afghanistan isn’t wise and good.
But the alternative of not reporting on them carries another set of problems.
And it isn’t clear not reporting on them will be better for those serving in war right now.
Is it better not to know if the rate of returning combat vets committing homicide is markedly higher than the normal rate of such crimes among military members?
It appears those numbers aren’t readily available, largely because of Pentagon decisions, or because of the scope of gathering such information.
Just because the NYTimes has done lots of bad journalism in the past five years doesn’t mean this article shares much or any of such badness.
It’s a legitimate, solidly reported human interest piece with original reporting and several sides expressed, including the limitations of the investigation itself. And some pretentious, overblown prose, no doubt.
Maybe this NYTimes piece will spark the gathering of such data. Doesn’t seem to me that getting such information is, per se, a bad thing.
There’s nothing inherent in such numbers that condemns the military or the war or any war.
And they might help America better take care of its bravest.
nodak boy:
You are misreading and mischaracterizing the NYTimes piece on returning vets and crime.
No, dear, I am not misreading and mischaracterizing the NYTimes piece. I read and characterize it exactly as you do. It’s the wingnuts who are misreading and mischaracterizing the NYTimes piece.
Read a little more carefully before you comment next time, OK?
nodak boy: 25 para. “Brutalizing effect”
Wingnuts? Why don’t you ask the “troops.”
If you haven’t been in either Iraq or Afghanistan you don’t understand. You can’t glean an understanding from the media; they don’t report reality. You can’t become informed by listening to politicians; they only deal in political expediency.
We are sick and tired of media outlets, like the New York Times poisoning the well. We are so sick and tired, that we don’t give two shits what our civilian bretheren think, believe or feel about Iraq or Afghanistan any longer – and that, my friends is a dangerous place for this country to be.
When the all volunteer military decided to win in Iraq, despite what the rest of Americans thought about the war, we started down a very dangerous path. In the next year or so – when the US military victory in Iraq leads to a stable economy and political system, and we all come back home to stay – this country is going to have some major problems to deal with.
Not one of you – either on the right or the left that didn’t serve with us on the ground in the war – has ever truely “supported the troops.” Right or wrong – that is how the vast majority of us feel. Sure, someone is going to respond that was there and say – oh your full of it, you can’t speak for everyone. Ok, and if they were truely in the military, they cannot truthfully respond by negating the fact that the vast majority of those of us who serve are relatively conservative, wanted to go to Iraq / Afghanistan, hated Rummy and love (yes – that is the word) our Commander-in-Chief.
The bottom-line here is that we are sick of your BS – you don’t know what you are talking about, you don’t understand the enemy we are fighting but you will, without fail, attempt to happily armchair quarterback the war into a death spiral.
Those of us in uniform that have watched our countrymen turn yellow in the face of percieved hardship has disgusted us. We are so disheartened by your cowardice that we no longer value the collective voice of the National Will. Two wars have solidified this ideology in the brain housing group of the military’s corporate memory. This could be the beginning of the most dangerous time in our nation’s history.
Semper Fidelis.
In the next year or so – when the US military victory in Iraq leads to a stable economy and political system, and we all come back home to stay – this country is going to have some major problems to deal with.
If only that were possible. But that’s not going to happen, no matter what Congress or Bush or anyone else does.
Those of us in uniform that have watched our countrymen turn yellow in the face of percieved hardship has disgusted us. We are so disheartened by your cowardice that we no longer value the collective voice of the National Will.
We’re all being lied to, including you.
We’re all being lied to, including you.”
You are absolutely right. However, neiter the media nor politicians of any stripe provide me with eyesight, experience or analysis.
Boots on the ground and being in the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan have provided me with clarity that you and 99.08% of America (based on your Veterans** vs US Population numbers, only .02% of Americans have served in Iraq) can never have.
**NOTE – Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans are defined by those who have served in either conflict; not whether they have been discharged. These “Veterans” can still be serving on active duty. They are not “double counted” by including multiple tours of duty.
Keep telling yourself that we are loosing in Iraq. Keep telling yourself that the success of the “surge” and Iraqi political and economic stability are not variable elements. Keep telling yourself that I am just a dumb, brain-washed grunt.
You are just as blind as those that you assail and as gullible as the wingnuts who blindly follow them. You are merely marching to a different nutty drummer.
Semper Fidelis.
Boots on the ground and being in the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan have provided me with clarity that you and 99.08% of America (based on your Veterans** vs US Population numbers, only .02% of Americans have served in Iraq) can never have.
Yes, and there are many soldiers and marines who also have served in Iraq or Afghanistan whose analysis differs considerably from yours. So don’t argue with me; argue with them.
Various commanding generals have said several times that the real problems in Iraq have no military solution. The truth is we could fight the greatest war that was ever fought and achieve complete military dominance of Iraq, and still lose, because no objective useful to the US (and probably not Iraq, for that matter) would be accomplished.
I have to commend the astute analytical skills of the person who was first to coin the phrase “quagmire accomplished”. Bush’s surge might be enjoying the appearence of success,but Bush’s defeat in Iraq has already occured. And in time, and with billions more to be spent, Bush’s defeat will become apparent.
I’m fond of relating current observations in terms of childhood lessons learned from classic fables (go figure). In Bush’s claim of a successful surge I see that the expression, “all that glitters is not gold”, is applicable.
Dan,
I think it likely that if I had served as you have that I would have the same disdain, if not contempt, for civilians. But I didn’t and that means among many things that I don’t have the same investment that you and other vets have in the perspective about doing the do over there.
Given all the sacrifice, dedication to duty, ingenuity and persistence that you and your brethren have manifested in service there, from over here, what I see is trillions in debt, a logistical reality for the Army, Marine Corps, reserve and guard units that are many more billions that now have to be spent, a weakened ability elsewhere in the world and a commitment to the region that we are not going to be able to walk away from even if we truly decided to leave.
My guess is that if the new president is a Dem that the Sec. Def and the joint chiefs are going to brief the new Prez with information that none of the candidates could receive as candidates, that the short, mid- and long term forecasts are all going to point to the imperative that we stay. And then of course we will have fun and games with word craft that really is just a bad case of bullshititus about why the new Prez cannot live up to campaign promises.
You may love Bush, but dude, the military never got the level and quality of leadership that it deserved, hell that the whole frickin’ country deserved. And the ass hat about it is that if he had been competent and executed the plan to the max (paying attention to all the research and smarts about screwing around in the mid-east) then he and the Republicans and the military would be King freakin’ Kong right now and we wouldn’t see a Dem president for a long time.
Instead what we got was damn near catastrophic failure until your hero started listening to somebody that knew shit from shinola and found a way to keep from getting run out of the country. And now we are about to have to surge to keep from getting our asses kicked in Afghanistan. WTF?
“The truth is we could fight the greatest war that was ever fought and achieve complete military dominance of Iraq, and still lose, because no objective useful to the US (and probably not Iraq, for that matter) would be accomplished.”
Logic unravels in your narrow analysis of the statement “the real problems in Iraq have no military solution.” There is no doubt that this statement is true, however you cannot consider the facts on the ground in a vacuum – without security there is no stability, without stability the conditions for political reconciliation cannot exist. There can be no “US Military dominance” within that equation; Iraqis must ultimately be able to stand on their own two feet and provide security and stability for their own country. If you truly understood the success of the surge, you would understand that the President’s strategic commitment to the objective (security and stability) was the catalyst for Iraq to pick a side. Additionally, at the tactical and operational level, the commitment of our nation’s military to the individual security and safety of the individual Iraqi man, woman and child made the choice clear; supporting the insurgent / AQI was self destructive, supporting the work of US forces was the path to reconstruction.
Further, have you considered the outcomes that are favorable to the US or have you simply discarded them as untenable? I know the following statement is parroting administration rhetoric, but from a strategic perspective it is a true axiom: A stable and secure Iraq ally fits squarely within the National Security Strategy of the United States and would transform the Middle East’s security paradigm. The success of the “surge” will not be defined in weeks, months or even a year. The success of the “surge” will define the manner in which Iraqis are capable of seizing their own destiny. At the end of the day, Iraqis will define their own history and that will be the metric to measure whether the strategic objectives of the United States are met.
“Yes, and there are many soldiers and marines who also have served in Iraq or Afghanistan whose analysis differs considerably from yours. So don’t argue with me; argue with them.”
Absolutely correct. There will never be a plurality in opinion on this subject, especially when many of those soldiers and marines that you speak of have based their opinions on pre-“surge” metrics (because they had boots on the ground prior to the surge). Lastly, having been in both the enlisted and officer ranks, I can fairly say that an individual marine’s opinion is anecdotal, if it is based on his/her narrow tactical experience in a single area of operations. Unless their experiential analysis is based on academic rigor and a broader analysis over time, it doesn’t provide you with a single data point.
The bottom-line here is that your analysis is not based on lessons learned, after action reports, the military history of this conflict and/or an understanding of the theory/practice of war. I suggest you read the book “Army at Dawn.” The North African campaign provides a vivid historical example of how inept policy makers, incompetent generals, and troops unprepared to fight on a battlefield not of their choosing can turn the carnage of a bloody debacle into the tactics, techniques and procedures needed for eventual victory, in that case, on the European continent. The lessons of that “great†war have been lost on the civilians and politicians of our nation.
Semper Fidelis.
however you cannot consider the facts on the ground in a vacuum – without security there is no stability, without stability the conditions for political reconciliation cannot exist.
Yes, I understand that. But one year into a six-month surge, and by all accounts the political situation in Iraq has deteriorated further, not improved. If it had improved you’d have an argument. But it hasn’t. So you don’t.
The larger issue involves the vital security interests of the United States. For some time national security experts both public and private have said that our presence in Iraq is making us less secure, not more. It has worsened our security in several ways that you can read about here, and the consensus for some time has been that we could be making real progress against Islamic terrorism were it not for the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq is counterproductive to our security interests.
After the invasion — which I opposed — I agreed with people who said we needed to stay to clean up the mess we made. But under present civilian leadership we’ve spent nearly five years floundering around, wasting lives and money. All we’ve done is weaken ourselves by depleting resources. Enough.
And the fact remains that we had no legitimate reason to invade Iraq. The invasion served no vital interest of the United States. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and we knew that at the time of the invasion. The UN weapons inspectors were begging Bush not to invade because they were finding no indications of WMDs, and it was well known (by everybody but Dick Cheney, anyway) at the time of the invasion that Iraq had no nuclear weapons program. The best thing we can do for ourselves and the Iraqis is get out asap.
“And now we are about to have to surge to keep from getting our asses kicked in Afghanistan. WTF?”
DoubleCinco,
Your last comment is straight up propaganda and completely divorced from reality.
“And the ass hat about it is that if he had been competent and executed the plan to the max (paying attention to all the research and smarts about screwing around in the mid-east) then he and the Republicans and the military would be King freakin’ Kong right now and we wouldn’t see a Dem president for a long time.”
First and foremost – I could care less which party inhabits the White House. What I do care about is that we learn the lessons and apply them to the future. There are plenty of “Dem” Presidents that I hold in the highest regard, the last two don’t even come close to making the cut.
Here’s the brutal reality – Bush didn’t “f” this thing up, we (the military) did. The military operates on mission type orders and commander’s intent. This also goes for the CinC / Military relationship – he gives us a mission, his intent and the desired end state and we come up with the plan, back brief him, get the green light and execute. That is what makes our military so “freakin” powerful on the battlefield – the same relationship exists all the way down the chain and today, no one comes close in a match up. It’s like having a football team that can effectively adjusts to any audible, made by any player at any given moment in a play. Anything more = micro management. Micro management in the GWOT rests squarely on the shoulders of the SecDef.
Bush isn’t the duty expert – the generals failed him, you and yes – me and my brother and sisters in arms. The generals sat by and let the SecDef sell the President on a plan that fit into Rummy’s transformation revolution. The generals, rubber stamped the plan even though they new that it was FUBAR. Why? Because they truly believed that they could turn a bad plan into success if they just concentrated on their own piece of the pie and didn’t rock the boat. Unfortunately, our senior leadership thought that protecting their jobs (and pensions) = protecting the men and women in their charge. Instead of throwing their stars on the President’s desk (they serve at the pleasure of the President, not the SecDef) in protest, they elected to try to make a flawed plan work.
Our general and flag officers committed the worst possible sin – they did not use their stars to ensure mission accomplishment and by doing so, sacrificed troop welfare to arrogance and ego.
Semper Fidelis.
“Yes, I understand that. But one year into a six-month surge, and by all accounts the political situation in Iraq has deteriorated further, not improved. If it had improved you’d have an argument. But it hasn’t. So you don’t.”
All accounts? Citation? Source?
Your statement is not remotely accurate. Even Democrats are saying that both the situation on the ground and politically (as a result of last week’s de-Baathification reconciliation legislation) things are better. If you had actually read the article by which you have based your entire blog post, you might have noticed that both Clinton and Obama concede that the situation on the ground has improved! Both point to their pressure to pull troops as the catalyst instead of the surge.
OH that’s right! You couldn’t even “get past the blurb — ‘It is beyond Democrats to concede that Bush’s troop surge has been a substantial success’.†Evidently you can’t stomach even considering that someone who doesn’t subscribe to your world view could have anything of substance to contribute to the debate.
Continuing this discussion is pointless. I might have well have spent my entire day with my thumb in rectal defilade.
Semper Fidelis.
All accounts? Citation? Source?
There’s a link in the post to one source. Try to find any objective source who says otherwise. Good luck.
Yes, the situation on the ground has improved. Nobody says otherwise. But that’s beside the point. You are looking at the small picture and not seeing the big picture.
You lacked the courage or integrity to address any of my comments; you just hurl insults. Get help.
Continuing this discussion is pointless. I might have well have spent my entire day with my thumb in rectal defilade.
I feel the same way. I’m sure you won’t mind that you are banned now. Good bye.
I’m so fed up with idiots like Dan, its impossible for me to put it into words.
I’d like to add the words of Major General Smedley Butler, (July 30, 1881 – June 21, 1940). Butler, at the time of his death, was the most decorated U.S. Marine in history. He was twice the recipient of the Medal of Honor, one of only nineteen to be so honored. I don’t know what the context is for hiswords:
I spent thirty-three years and four months in active service in the country’s most agile military force, the Marines. I served in all ranks from second Lieutenant to Major General. And during that period I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
Thus I helped make Mexico, and especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenue in. I helped in the raping of half-a-dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers and Co. in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras “right” for American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. I was rewarded with honors, medals, and promotion. Looking back on it, I feel that I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate a racket in three city districts….
Poor ol Semper Fi cannot see what Smedley Butler saw, that he is simply a tool for capitalism. I am so tired of hearing from pompous moral pinheads like Semper Fi, and of paying their salaries no less, to go out and drench this country’s reputation in innocent blood, all so the fat cats can get fatter. I don’t give a shit that they’re in uniform and risking their lives. They’re wrong.
I’ve been on a slow burn ever since this guy showed up here, and I’m glad he’s banned.
Sorry dear Danny Boy…
But ’twas arrogance that got them generals and admirals those stars in the first place…
And if you think you’re gonna make any kinda changes in this country with your mucho-macho bullshit…
Bring it the fuck on…
Maha,
Been watching the discourse in interest all day betwee you and Dan. Don’t normally post here, but I occasionally look in on your blog. Juat an observation:
By banning him, you just proved his point.
You levied some pretty heavy accusations about courage or integrity when he has specifically addressed your points in his previous posts.
Maybe you need to take a look in the mirror, dude.
I hope you don’t make it a point of banning anyone who is critical of your opinion and challenges you. Seems a bit like something the wingnuts would do.
Cheers.
Dan’s riff on “the military failed the president” really pissed me off … The whole “commander-in-chief” title is WAY over-used by lots o people to try to imply that the president is the commander of all of us … he ain’t, of course. But he very much IS the commander-in-chief of the military. That means he IS the ultimate “senior leadership”.
Of course bush doesn’t make tactical decisions. As president he’s supposed to make high-level strategic decisions, but he’s not even done that, he’s just set goals. Nevertheless, as the commander-in-chief, it is his responsibility, and his responsibility ALONE, to know what kinds of things the military is good at and can do, and what kinds of things the military is not good at and can’t do, BEFORE tasking them to, you know, do something.
At the beginning of the Iraq war, our military was exceedingly good at, well, winning wars. And they did a damn fine job of it. They were not particularly good at occupation type work – anti-insurgency and the like – mostly because the situation was never really supposed to come up. The US liberates countries, we don’t conquer them.
But, the military did the best it could at the time, and steadily improved to the point that NOW the military is getting pretty damn good at occupation-work. I suspect THAT has way more to do with our current military successes than any surge. It is, however, way, way too late. Don’t get me wrong, the complete turn-around in tactics and weapons that has occurred in the past five years is astonishing for an organization as large and with as much beaurocratic inertia as our military; that, in fact, is part of my point.
This is not about “bashing the troops”. This has NEVER been about bashing th troops. This is about what is achievable and what is not.
And currently, the very best hope for peace and stability in Iraq for the short to medium term is for Iraq to become aligned with Iran. If we had sane policies in regard to Iran, that wouldn’t be such a problem. As is, it’s disaster for any American interests.
By banning him, you just proved his point.
I don’t have time to argue with people who aren’t listening to anything anyone else says. Read comment rules.
You levied some pretty heavy accusations about courage or integrity when he has specifically addressed your points in his previous posts.
He hadn’t addressed any of my points except to deny them and insult me.
Maybe you need to take a look in the mirror, dude.
I’m not a dude. I’m a ma’am
hope you don’t make it a point of banning anyone who is critical of your opinion and challenges you. Seems a bit like something the wingnuts would do.
I ban people who are not capable of honest discussion, because I don’t have time to mess with them and I don’t want them sucking the life out of comment threads. See comment rules.
Here’s the brutal reality – Bush didn’t “f†this thing up, we (the military) did.
Huh? I believe that a little self flagellation can be a healthy thing, but that statement is ridiculous… The invasion of Iraq was fucked up from the moment the Lord gave Bush his commandment to take out Saddam. Maybe the Lord gave Jousha the victory or gave David the victory…But I don’t think he’s going to give Bush the victory, surge or no surge.