I love General Clark - but I think he is wrong.

[Joe for Clark]

We are taking one hell of a risk right now over there. Those kids are beaten to shit. The equipment is beaten to shit. And this is a very dangerous world right now.

Get them out - fast - and rebuild this army - fast. Fast as we can.

They will absolutely degenerate into civil war in Iraq- but they have been doing so for 2000 years.

You really think ANYONE could have talked to us in 1859 and convinced us to do other then what we did then??

We may be able to contain this now to within Iraq - but this window is closing fast.

Joe

[PDJane]

1. I too, disagree with Clark,

much as I respect him. The middle east is a damn mess because of American meddling, not in spite of it. When the major powers decided to carve up the middle east after WWII, the middle east was not able to gain the independence they sought; when they did, in places, manage democracy, the US managed to overthrow the independent governments when they decided that their resources were important for their own people. That is why Iran is an enemy; it has to do with the US re-installing the Shah and overthrowing Mossadeq, the rightful and legally elected ruler. When the Shah was overthrown by the Mullahs, the biggest problem was the loss of power over Iran; it has nothing to do with democracy or humanitarian reasons. It has to do with OIL and resources, nothing more. Moreover, Iran has tried to extend an olive branch to the US; the administration has declared, unequivacably, that they will not negotiate with a theocratic state. Pardon me?

It seems to me that, in trying to appeal to the religious right and allowing the theocrats to proselytize inside the armed forces, the US is working towards a mostly theocratic state. They aren't going to negotiate with another sect of followers of the God of Abraham? That is amusing, I suppose, but it's not too logical.

Moreover, the American soldier often does NOT hit what he shoots at; he hits friendlies, he hits trees and wildlife, and he hits civilians. If that were not the case, the US would not be purchasing bullets from Israel and China, thousands and thousands of rounds. He does torture and abuse civilians, and his command tacitly encourages such behaviour. If you don't think so, ask the inhabitants of Okinawa what it's like to live with an American military occupation.

It is not quite true that the middle east has always been a hotbed of warring tribes; the middle east was a fine and civilized place long before my ancestors.....and likely yours....started building castles and becoming Christians and burning pagans and jews for the glory of their God.

Colonialism is to blame for a great deal of what ails the world, and the US is just one more in a long line of conquerors. I firmly believe that the God of Abraham has a lot to answer for in that, too.

The humanitarian crisis in the Sudan has its roots in American imperialism. The fight with Venezuela mostly has to do with a new socialism meant to benefit the people, and oil. The fight with Cuba is another flavour of the same cream; that was over Castro throwing out the sugar plantations and other bloodsuckers. The School of the Americas has graduated some of the finest military dictators on the planet.

The list of bombed countries since WWII is astounding.......and heartbreaking. There have been 21 countries; China in 1945-46 and again in 1950-53, Korea in 1950-53, Guatemala in 1954, 1960, and 1967-69, Indonesia in 1958, Vietnam in 1961-73, Congo in 1964, Laos in 1964-73, Peru in 1965, Cambodia in 1969-70, El Salvador throughout the 1980s, Nicaragua throughout the 1980s, Lebanon in 1983-84, Grenada in 1983, Bosnia in 1985, Libya in 1986, Panama in 1989, Iraq in 1991-20??, Sudan in 1998, Former Yugoslavia in 1999, and Afghanistan in 1998 and 2002. the lates of those, Iraq, Sudan, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, have been bombed with DU weapons, which contaminates the soil and water and air and makes your own servicemen sick. Agent orange is still being found in Vietnam, and is still causing birth defects...but some of the trees are finally starting to come back.

But congress keeps funding the military, and the US curtains off the blood and gore with the flag .....and keeps on going.

[Joe for Clark]

4. Man - I think Clark is one of the smartest commanders I

ever heard talk.

I just think he lost his objectivity. This war goes bad - alot of the command goes with it.

I assume some of his friends. I can understand that. But I think - good riddance.

Your comments have much basis in reality. But with Clark - I think this is about loyalty to him.

I think.

Goes to prove - the best army is the army we put on a field without professional military aims.

That is how we started way back when.

Anyway - I think he means well - he is just dead wrong here.

Joe

[FrenchieCat]

31. I think you need to provide more context in terms of what he actually stated, in his words,

that you disagree with. I don't see a link; I don't see a quote. I just read the fact that you "disagree". :shrug:

[Clark2008]

2. I don't because, logistically, we can't pull out any faster

and, morally, per the Geneva Conventions, we have to fix what we broke and it will take protection to do that.

Sad, ain't it?

[PDJane]

3. The biggest mistake in that

Is in thinking that you can fix what you have broken there. It can't be done, at least not by Americans. America will have to foot the bill, but the laws put in place by the "transitional authority" won't work to help a fledgling economy.

The very best thing that the US can do is get the hell out, NOW.......and be prepared for the butcher's bill.

[high density]

6. I agree

I'm a big Clark fan but I think we need to end this Iraq conflict immediately. I thought for awhile that perhaps we could fix what is broken, but the leadership in place simply doesn't know how to do that. Whether or not Clark could do it, I don't know. With the stooges we do have running the show, I think it's completely beyond hope and every additional day we spend there is doing nothing but costing lives and dollars.

[AuntPatsy]

5. We didn't stay to fix Nam and was that country destroyed because we left?

[Joe for Clark]

8. Maybe it kind of was -

Maybe not a good example -

There is a big difference with Viet Nam though- they are not fighting a 1000+ year old civil war.

They make arguments - that if we leave, the residents will be killed like the m-yards were.

I still have feelings about that - all these years later.

But this isn't even close.

Cause they would have fought this civil war no matter what. This is not about retribution to them.

And I'll say this about Viet Nam - it was the wrong war - but fought for the right reason.

Can anyone seriously tell me that this one was fought- for the right reason??

Joe

[PDJane]

10. 'Nam wasn't fought for the right reason either. eom.

[Joe for Clark]

12. I will not defend the decision.

But at least we did that in response to an ally - in the middle of a cold war - against forces bent on a course we could never live with. In doing so - we forced a proxy war - as opposed to a hot war -against a foe that that could take us to the mat.

You see the point - we had an ally ask us for help.

We made no war of aggression.

I don't defend it - I understand it.

Joe

[PDJane]

17. Oh, Jesus H. on Toast Points.

That's a damn myth, as was the separation of North and South Vietnam. The US was an occupier! One in a long line, I admit, including China and the French.

The communists were mostly in the SOUTH, by the way......and the bombings of Cambodia and Laos were just a side jaunt.

[Joe for Clark]

19. I was next in line in my family to go there -

I was in high school when Saigon fell. Watched it on TV.

My father and mother - vets and dead against the war. Some of my brothers and sister were SDS - and some came back vets from it. Full spectrum.

We all agreed on the one premise - right idea - wrong war. All of us did.

And when Saigon finally fell - we all cried in my house. We knew what it meant.

Joe

[ConsAreLiars]

20. Joe got his head filled with a lot of crap, and still hasn't learned to question his training.

He doesn't know the the temporary partition was to enable the easy withdrawal of French occupation forces, and a vote in both sections of Vietnam in 1956 regarding reunification or separation was a part of the 1954 Geneva Accords. He doesn't know that the US stepped in as the new colonial power, and the exile Diem was "helped" to take control of the South and dutifully prevented the UN mandated elections from taking place, since popular sentiment meant that reunification under Ho Chi Minh was absolutely certain.

But he means well.

[Joe for Clark]

21. I really do mean well -

About that time - what I really remember - I remember my brothers get getting shit on at LAX once -

Spit on - oh, I remember that. I thought - don't ever treat these guys like this - they are good kids. And I am saying some of my family were founders in SDS - it is true.

But I am telling you we all cried the day Saigon fell - all of us. We all knew what it meant.

I don't know - I know - the kids don't get to pick the war they fight -they just get sent to do it.

My god - it is so hard to fight for something cause you are told to do it and not believe in it.

And they did. And but for the grace of god go I.

In a lot of ways - they may have been the best of us - how hard it is to do that which you don't believe?

And I went to a lot of graduations then. They were ABSOLUTELY good kids. I will swear to that.

And they died like that - It is so sad to me.

Joe

[ConsAreLiars]

30. I don't at all doubt you mean well.

In real life we could probably sit around and get shit-faced drunk together and have a good fight and a good cry and a few hugs. And your concern for your kid is rightly at the very top of everything else.

So let me give you the poem that gives me some solace. One of my heroes (I put him with Jefferson and MLK and Gandhi and Mother Jones), but probably not one of yours, but maybe it will help.


From: http://www.motherbird.com/hochi.html
Ho Chi Minh - Poems From Prison - Translated by Kenneth Rexroth

GOOD DAYS COMING

Everything changes, the wheel
of the law turns without pause.

After the rain, good weather.

In the wink of an eye

The universe throws off
its muddy cloths.

For ten thousand miles
the landscape

Spreads out like
a beautiful brocade.

Gentle sunshine.
Light breezes. Smiling flowers,

Hang in the trees, amongst the
sparkling leaves,

All the birds sing at once.

Men and animals rise up reborn.

What could be more natural?

After sorrow comes happiness

[Joe for Clark]

7. That is such f-ing bullshit.

Maybe it would take months to get everyone home - I guess - and it sure didn't take them so long to get there, did it?

And we CAN pull back to our major bases and pull back in order from there. We do NOT have to send out combat patrols in between - right?

And by the way - we didn't break anything - they did, more than a thousand years ago.

That army won the "war" - a long time ago.

Joe

[PDJane]

9. Sorry, Joe.

You did start this war. You can't go back 3000 years to find the roots of this war; this was a pre-emptive war on civilians. Bin Laden MAY have been in Afghanistan, but that was no reason to bomb the hell out of the civilian population. Hussein had nothing to do with bin Laden at all, and allies of the US have killed more of their own people and been more repressive than Hussein. This was a war of choice, there was no reason to be there that wasn't fiction, and it is a war crime.

The US is not the good guy here.

This administration has, in fact, done what Hitler's regime was charged with in the Hague. “The unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation is not only a war crime, it is the supreme war crime differing from all other war crimes only in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole”.

[Joe for Clark]

11. Maybe - but we sure don't have to stay there either.

And the roots of this do go back to the 8th century.

And we didn't exist then.

If there ever was a threat - there isn't now.

We can walk away.

Joe

[PDJane]

16. The roots of this war don't go back centuries.

They go back to the end of WWII. Iraq has only been a country since 1932; my mother is old enough to remember the genisis of Iraq as a country.

The fighting there is because of regional arguments that were and are being promoted by the presence of the US ...and blowback.

You can talk about regional wars and religious wars and centuries of war, but the roots of this particular conflict do not go back to those times. They are directly atrributable to Britain, France and the United States redrawing the map of the middle east, imposing artificial boundaries on the region.

[Joe for Clark]

18. From this point of view - they go back to the time the

borders were drawn with Turkey -

Cause that is why they are so upset.

Joe

[eagler]

42. Yes, we can. We can do any damn thing we want to do.

We could very easily withdraw to the Kurdish North or anywhere in the area.

[aquart]

13. OUT NOW.

I didn't hear Clark. Is he trying to carve out some kind of victory? So that we haven't left with our tail between our legs?

We are defeated by our arrogance and our deranged intention. We attempted a war of aggression against a non-belligerent nation. They cleaned our clock. Our humiliation is EARNED.

[Divine Discontent]

14. include a quote next time

I have no idea what situation you're speaking of. I hope Clark didn't say the war was still winnable. I doubt that he did, but what exactly did he say, we're there for years to come?

[ConsAreLiars]

15. There is a video of Clark at the YearlyKos a couple days ago

As you might expect, his view is neither simpleminded nor stupid. It is about an hour long, and worth watching. Short form is that extricating from a disaster area is a bit harder than creating one, and that disavowing any permanent bases and relying on building alliances based on the common good serves the interests of the people better than mass murder and bully-boy posturing.

http://www.yearlykosconvention.org/node/726

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. Ditto what ConsAreLiars said, plus...

(This has to be a fast post, I am writing from the road on a work trip and have very little time free, gotta be at work early.)

Clark's main message, and that video really should be viewed to understand it, is that the stakes are ever so much higher than the debates we are having over how quickly we bring 180,000 troops home from Iraq can encompass. He says to far too great an extent, Democrats have let Bush frame the middle east debate as a tactical discussion about whether more or less soldiers, for a greater or lesser duration inside Iraq will make that nation more or less stable.

By confining the debate to those questions we allow Bush to avoid any discussion about what his overall strategy in the middle east is, instead he throws up smoke screens over who is or is not supporting our troops, and who is or is not listening to our Generals, which is what he chooses to talk about instead of talking about what his plans and priorities in the middle east are. It is the overall strategy of Bush and the neocons that is driving instability in the entire region, increasing the liklihood thqt Israel will be drawn into a war,which would draw us deeper into broader Middle Eastern military conflicts ourselves. To not recognize, for example, that cooperation of any sort with Iran about Iraq is essentially ruled out because it is U.S. ppolicy to overthrow Iran's government, is ignoring the Wooly Mammoth in the room. We need to force George Bush to face that his entire strategy in the region is a monumental failure breeding a series of additional monumental failures to come if not changed. It means getting out of Iraq yes, but not only that.

This interview that Clark gave to TPM immediateky after his Kos keynotee, adds a lot more context to his speech that morning. See it here:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12898

[Joe for Clark]

24. Due respect - read what he said for the last two years or so.

My kid is an NCO there in Mosul, Baghdad and up thru Dialya -

It was patently untrue. Iknow he meant well.

Joe

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. Due respect - I have.

and I've commented extensively about much of it here at DU, you can go back through my Journal here to see that, or read my own blog. Clark continually has nailed George Bush and company on Iraq for 5 sraight years. I wish your son a speedy safe return from that hell. I have no fight with you Joe, nor do I have the time now to pour over dozens of tapes and transcripts with you. There is much I could point you to if I did.

Bottom line, the reason why we have remained within Iraq as we have for the last two yeqrs is George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Even now with slim Democratic majorities in Congress, we are struggling to achieve a pull out, while we allow a drift toward war with Iran to continue.

[Joe for Clark]

26. Tom - he said we could win it - that we could stick it out.

He did Tom - He learned political speak.

And I knew it was over a few years ago - I knew.

To this day he will say we can't pull out. Ask him.

He is wrong.

Yes we can.

My mother, father, uncles all military commanders - Tom this army is breaking.

We cannot afford that. They are us.

I want the army back - I want them brought back to full strength. Right now!

His friends go down Tom - when this does.

He is not objective now.

I think that is the way it is. I still love the guy.

Joe

[FrenchieCat]

29. Could you give us the link and the quote, when you state........"he said we could win it".....

Cause this is what he said in his speech at YearlyKos:

"But here's where, here's where I need your help. We got to get out of there the right way, because unlike Vietnam, when we leave Iraq, we'll still be left with a whole passel of interests there. We'll still have concerns about Iranian nuclear potential. We'll still have worries about Israel and the Palestinians. We'll still be worried about, yes, the security of the world's principal supply of oil. We'll still be worried about our friends in the, in the Persian, in the Arab Gulf who, who are dependent on us for some of their security. We'll still be worried about Lebanon. We'll still be worried about terrorists. Those interests won't go away simply by pulling U.S. troops out. So, we not only have to come out, we have to come out the right way.
http://securingamerica.com/node/2601

I want to know if you really think that we should just simply act like the middle east doesn't exist once we are gone. If you do, great and good luck!

[Joe for Clark]

32. Frenchie -read what he said =

We got to get out of there the right way

What the hell does that mean?? How many kids die to "do it the right way"???

You have read him just like me.

No - the difference - I know we don't need them.

Cause if that is true - the consequences are so significant for us. Everything opens up then.

He thinks in a box - and he thinks of his friends - I don't give a shit about his friends.

I think they need to be retired.

That is the truth.

Joe

[FrenchieCat]

33. I never like to argue about Troops under these terms as you are presenting them.......

as the troops are volunteer troops and yet you are attempting to make them look like innocent children caught in the cross fire. They are not....and I hope you don't really think that, in particular if you have a relative in the military. Further, it is the Iraqis that didn't volunteer for this, and they are the ones dying at a fast clip. Do you have any concerns about them.....or do you just believe in your heart of hearts that it couldn't get possibly worse for them.....cause I believe that there is that chance, regardless of whether you want to entertain that thought or not.

I was against this war from the beginning because of what would happen to the Iraqis, not what would happen to our troops who signed up to possibly do battle if called upon.

"We got to get out of there the right way", as Clark states means just that. Considering that Bush ain't pulling out tomorrow, I'm not sure why you think that Clark should just join the choir and be done with it. Part of the problem to begin with is how and why we got in....and some want to now believe that coming out just like we rammed in is the way to go. You are the one thinking in a Box......

Look, Clark ain't running, so it ain't about "Political speak" like you implied.

It is about advising that when you do this, take the time to do it right....cause there won't be any "do-over".....and sorry ain't gonna quite hit the spot on the next disaster brought on by those who like to scream out the slogans.

[Joe for Clark]

37. Clark is just wrong - I'll do this - that they are "innocent children'

Caught in a crossfire - you bet they are.

They are little kids and they shipped those dumb little kids over from Afghanistan- which they thought they were doing - to Iraq - hell, they knew it was stupid. And they are little kids.

Hell Frenchie - Uncle John was a general - I have an uncle that was an admiral too- and I have a grand uncle that is a saint in the catholic church too.

You know what that means?? Don't kill little kids. That is all.

They are little kids - talk to me about voluntary military service - guess you better add just what they volunteered to do, too.

He is wrong Frenchie - It is that simple.

Joe

[FrenchieCat]

40. I don't consider American Soldiers little kids.......nor do I consider them "Dumb".....

Regardless of who is in "your" family.

I have relatives serving too........so you are not the only one (as you already know).

You saying someone is wrong, doesn't make it so. Sorry Joe for Clark, but your argument as produced one quote thus far...."we need to get out the right way".......and no link.

[Joe for Clark]

43. Oh - my judgements are based on watching my brothers,

really. I really think it is more appropriate to judge an army based on the foot soldiers.

As to if a 19 year old really is not a kid - show me one.

You know what those kids do over there - play pirated video games - you know that??

Yeah - they are so grown up.

I guess I didn't link something - but if you didn't read what was said - you should have.

The country knows to get out of the way now -whatever I say is my opinion anyway.

You ever have a kid crying on the phone to you about some ambush - that they may have killed or seen their friends killed??

What a sobbering experience.

SO tell me - why is it that the war is ok to continue for a nebulous reason we can never get our head around, exactly??

Cause I know what the funerals look like - and for the life of me - I cannot understand people not getting it?

Joe

[FrenchieCat]

45. Some are kids, some are not.......

Look......Your emotional tactic of calling our soldiers "Dumb" kids is really starting to grate on me. And then to top it off, the fact that you discount the lives of Iraqis to not be as worthy as the lives of Americans is really making this something that I don't even want to debate anymore. Further, you choose not to provide any context in your "disagreement" with Clark. You don't see it anyway but your way, which is get out tomorrow, even though what you are saying ain't gonna happen, and few, really few believe that we "should" just pull out without further thought or strategy.

I won't say anymore. You are certainly justified in "disagreeing" with Clark in his stating that we can't just pull out without a rational and sensible plan to do so to mimize the damage on our way out because the Middle East will continue on and so will the shit that we basically roused....if you want to. I just don't believe that your argument has the merit that you believe it does. That is all. I'm just not into the absolutes as you appear to be. There needs to be some planning, and it needs to be done with great care. Haste makes waste. I'd hate to see us pulling out being a desatrious deja vu as incompently executed as when we invaded Iraq.

[Joe for Clark]

49. I didn't mean anything to you - really.

I know you mean well.

But this battle -it is so lost. And there is NO justification for getting kids killed now.

The damn government went on vaction for christ sake.

With great care -

It takes little thought to stop offensive moves - pull back to base and begin to pull out.

May take months to get everybody out - but with what risk??

That is the BS I will not tolerate -

This is over for us - has been for maybe three years - IMO

Joe

I don't mean you any ill Frenchie.

[FrenchieCat]

50. That's fine, and visa versa......and so we should pray for peace, and hope that

the peacemakers show up with viable and well thought out plans that will do just that; bring some lasting peace in the region for all concerned.

[Joe for Clark]

51. Indeed -

At least get our kids the hell out of the way.

Best to you Frenchie!!

Joe

[Jai4WKC08]

56. What the hell are you talking about?

Because you clearly don't have a clue as to what Clark has been saying.

What about it is "patently untrue"?

[Joe for Clark]

23. I am not going say that -

I still think he is the guy to rebuild this force structure.

You can read what you want -

Joe

[Nutmegger]

27. R&K!

I too disagree but admire him greatly.

[FrenchieCat]

28. simplistically, you are parroting exactly what the debate shouldn't be about.......

...."the Troops", it should be about the policy.

I'm glad that Wes Clark ain't pandering to the base for brownie points on this one. I'm glad he is rational and clear in understanding and stating that there should be a serious strategy on HOW we get out to include the various difficulties and scenarios that could and will occur, regardless of what may have happened in Vietnam. It is my recollection that many died in Vietnam after we left, even if our troops were then spared.

I'm glad he's not just screaming 50,000 troops out by this date without a real plan as to "then what?" like some pf our Democratic candidates.

As Clark stated to Amy Goodman recently in an interview....."The real danger is, and one of the reasons this is so complicated is because -- let's say we did follow the desires of some people who say, “Just pull out, and pull out now.” Well, yeah. We could mechanically do that. It would be ugly, and it might take three or four months, but you could line up the battalions on the road one by one, and you could put the gunners in the Humvees and load and cock their weapons and shoot their way out of Iraq. You'd have a few roadside bombs. But if you line everybody up there won't be any roadside bombs. Maybe some sniping. You can fly helicopters over, do your air cover. You’d probably get safely out of there. But when you leave, the Saudis have got to find someone to fight the Shias. Who are they going to find? Al-Qaeda, because the groups of Sunnis who would be extremists and willing to fight would probably be the groups connected to al-Qaeda. So one of the weird inconsistencies in this is that were we to get out early, we’d be intensifying the threat against us of a super powerful Sunni extremist group, which was now legitimated by overt Saudi funding in an effort to hang onto a toehold inside Iraq and block Iranian expansionism."
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/02/1440234

It's not about a "victory" of any kind.....it's about controlling the mayhem to some degree; the mayhem that we did start and have antagonized for the last 4 years. It's not about NOT pulling out, it's about the manner in which the pulling out should be done.

Bush ain't pulling out, so that's who should have a disagreement with. In terms of how we pull out, I believe that the answer is not as easy and as elementary as you have written it on paper.

[Joe for Clark]

34. Frenchie -

What do you really think the "army" is - commanders - cause it isn't.

It is the collective will of all the kids - cause they are the ones doing the dirty shit and they are the ones that will die to see it thru.

This war was over years ago - they knew it. They can't say it. I can - we can.

General Clark - a very smart guy -

A lot of my family commanded in one war or another Frenchie - and any good commander - know what they know?? They are nothing more then the extension of those kids.

Good ones know that.

Really - that is the deal here. Cause they are spent.

Joe

[FrenchieCat]

35. And what about the Iraqis? aren't some of them kids too?

Beyond that, I don't "interpret" what Clark stated as trying to "eek" out a victory. I understand it as making sure that we have come up with a wise strategy to mimize the damage on our way out.......cause there won't be any do-overs......if we fuck it up coming out......like we fucked it up going in. "Sorry" ain't gonna be cutting it this time. It's easy to "say" that it will all work out in the end for the Iraqis....as long as you are not one of them over there.

You want it to be simple.

But what you want, ain't what it will be....cause it rarely works that way.

Again, your disagreement should be with Bush; who doesn't want to pull out.

But instead it appears that you've decided to disagree with Wes Clark, who is not running for any office, but who dares state that we really need to think about our approach in getting out (when we finally get the chance, cause it ain't gonna happen till then anyways), and that there is a strategic and timing mechanism that needs to be employed in order to get this done most effectively.

Think of it as taking a knife out of someone's body (who thus far has survived but is close to death). Do you do as your impulse and instinct tells you and yank the knife out as quickly as possible beleiving that to be the answer regardless of whether it will kill the patient? Or do you attempt to extradicate the knife in a manner that won't further damage the internal organs.....?

[Joe for Clark]

39. I guess so -

I care about the American kids more though.

Joe

[FrenchieCat]

41. See, that's the box that you are in.

My box says that all lives are valuable, regardless of the nation of birth....and certainly the lives of those who's country was invaded without their permission are, at least, as valuable, as those who signed their names on the dotted line to go into the military willingly......

But all of those lives are valuable, to the point that a little premeditation on what the best course would be in getting out (cause we ain't getting out tomorrow, just ask George Bush) is not only a good thing worth discussion and thinking about, it should actually be mandatory for all who yell get out, provide us with the logistics and their rationally based prognosis of what could happen.

Simply saying "get out now" is not a plan, it's an adventure. And just like those "kids" who signed up for an adventure in the world of the military....ask them, and they'll tell you; it oftentimes doesn't end up as it would have been imagined.

[Joe for Clark]

46. Sure it is - it is a plan alright.

as much as staying there and getting shot at is.

Funny you say ask them this - why don't you do that.

The kids "signed up for an adventure" - I can tell one thing- you sure don't have blood over there.

You know what - after a while they don't really care how they come home - in a box or whatever - they just want out.

Funny how a few consecutive tours can do that do a "kid" isn't it??


I am telling you plainly - my family commanded in one war or another - and I judge based on my GI brothers in a way.

And I guess I can judge it in a "christian way" too - I guess.

Joe

[FrenchieCat]

48. ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1529274&mesg_id=1531654

[Jai4WKC08]

58. Having relatives who have served in the military

Really doesn't mean shit, Joe. YOU don't know what it's like, and your opinion ain't worth a dime's worth more than Frenchie's. Probably less because she at least is well read.

[Joe for Clark]

61. Look - I respect your opinion.

What I say is my opinion anyway.

Not well read - since you don't know me - how do you know that??

I know one thing - I know what happens when kids come back f-cked up - really well.

Joe

[Hippo_Tron]

36. Why do the Saudis have to fight the Shia?

My problem with this line of thinking is that it seems to be the Bush Administration line of thinking. Their Middle Eastern policy basically goes something like, "Saudi Arabia good: Iran, Iraq (when Saddam was in charge), and Syria bad."

Strategically I see no problem with a Shia controlled Iraq. They will do us the service of killing Al Qaeda. I also don't see the evidence that Shia militants will take the war to Saudi Arabia as soon as they control Iraq. To me it seems like more likely that it will go the other way around and that Saudi Arabia will try and aid the Sunnis which may cross the conflict to spread across the border.

[FrenchieCat]

38. Is it possible that we will end up with the Iraqi war turning into a proxi war

for Saudi Arabia vs. Iran?

If so, is that a good thing? :shrug:

[Hippo_Tron]

44. Certainly not a good thing, but I don't see Iran being the aggressor

And since the Saudis are our allies I should hope that we could prevent them from being the aggressor.

[FrenchieCat]

47. I believe the "Saudis are our allies" part is a bit shaky at best......

As I understand that they are our allies kinda of as of today........as about tomorrow, I'm not so sure how that would play out......considering that they will certainly take into consideration their own interests as they always have.

[Hippo_Tron]

52. I don't think that they want to be on our bad side

One of the things that is keeping that possible war between Saudi Arabia and Iran is Iran's knowledge that we will help the Saudis.

[FrenchieCat]

53. Maybe so....although, I'd say that the reverse is most likely even more true......

Cause although Saudi Arabia need us some to buy their oil, there's always the Chinese on the horizon to become their "BB". So I'd venture to again say that we most likely need the Saudis worse then they need us. We need their oil, in particular because we will be getting out of Iraq, regardless of what this administration thinks right now)......cause I don't think we are going to become best of buds with Iran or Venezuela or Russia for that matter any time real soon.......

and last I checked, Saudi Arabia and our troops on their soil is a big reason why Bin Laden got pissed enough at us to destroy those towers in New York City on 9/11.....which by extension provided the initial false pretext for us to go to Iraq.

Put it this way....the shit is a mess!

[Hippo_Tron]

54. This shit is indeed a mess and Bush is making it a greater mess

That much Clark, you, and I agree on. But I'm just not entirely sure I agree that a proxy war will start if we pull out of Iraq. And if there is a possibility of that happening, I think the best way to prevent said proxy war is with a diplomatic solution, there's not much more our troops can really do.

As far as our troops in Saudi Arabia go, the Saudi royal family never really had a problem with it, although many did (like Bin Laden). We removed our troops in 2003 after we invaded Iraq because they were mainly there to prevent Saddam from invading Saudi Arabia.

Make no mistake, if the Saudis feel threatened, King Abdullah will have no hesitation to get on the phone and ask the United States for help.

[sanskritwarrior]

55. No we are not, no our equipment is not

we are tired yes, and tired of the war, but we are not broken and our equipment is not worn to shit.......we could do this 2 more years before we reach what you describe..........I have been in the Army 14 years now and yes things are bad and we are tired, but we are far from broken.........

[Jai4WKC08]

57. The Guard is broken, and active force is not far behind

But the worst of it is, imo, the organizational character and culture of the military. The values we worked so hard to instill after Vietnam are in grave peril. They may be too far gone to repair.

[sanskritwarrior]

59. Exactly what values are in peril???

I hear stuff about lowering enlistment rates, etc ,etc......Here is what I know, the people joining now want to fight for their country, not use the military as a vocational trade school. I joined 14 years ago to fight for my country and now I'm getting what I asked for, I thank God, or allah, or whomever rules the heavens that nowadays the men and women joining want to join to fight America's enemies, not use the military as a trade school...........

[tabasco]

62. So you're inside the mind of every soldier now, eh?

You claim to speak for the entire military and claim you know why every soldier joined up?

That just makes you sound like a bullshit recruiter or troll.

Spend some time in an infantry platoon and get back to me on not being worn out and tired.

It's easy to sit in HQ looking at maps and say you're not tired.

And before you give me a John Wayne story, I was 11B for twelve years and I know what 96b's do.

[sanskritwarrior]

63. LOL

LOL so the fact that I reclassed to 11Series and got stuck in a 96series job has no bearing on you.......I have been debating putting you on ignore since all you do is follow me around and post after I post.

Like I said Tabasco, you want to have agrown up talk, I'm there, but if you want to act like an immature jerk, I will just keep laughing at you.......

PS I never said I speak for the entire military, but IT IS A FACT we are not yet BROKEN, we are close, but not there yet........As for an Infantry platoon, I'm trying but the O-3 outranks this E-7 anyday.......

[Joe for Clark]

60. I pray you are right. I really do.

And what do I know??

I really only trust first hand now - my kid and my family. But what I have come to understand - those vehicles - buffaloes, strykers, even the humveees - they are not holding up so well. The kids are really scraping to keep the damn things running - we can't keep doing that for two years. They need new equipment.

And I know this - they try and extend those kids - in combat now - one more time and they will have had it. They may be able to play soldier - maybe for two years. But when they come home - they will be permanently screwed up.

I do know about that. Seen it happen.

You take care.

Joe