The Four Way War
Over at Slate, Iraq war veteran and regular contributor Phillip Carter tells us that the US is fighting four wars simultaneously in Iraq. Stategies in one war complicates our success in the others.
Labels: iraq
Commentary on current events and other topics that you did not ask for.
Over at Slate, Iraq war veteran and regular contributor Phillip Carter tells us that the US is fighting four wars simultaneously in Iraq. Stategies in one war complicates our success in the others.
Labels: iraq
The brouhaha over blogrolling ignited when Kos purged his The DailyKos blogroll has produced some spirited responses, most notably skippy and Maryscott O'Connor. skippy, in particular, has taken his blog in the opposite direction from Kos and will now list every blog that links to him. Since I've linked to skippy since I put up my first blogroll, I am now part of what no doubt will be the biggest blogroll in blogtopia (and Yes! skippy coined that phrase).
Labels: blogtopia
Because I cannot say it better than BadTux, Fixer or Attytood, check out their words.
Labels: casualties, iraq
I sent the following letter to my senator today:
Senator McCain:
According to today’s Washington Post you called Democrats disingenuous for declaring support for U.S. troops while denouncing their commander in chief's strategy. Troops serving in Iraq "won't buy it. A vote of no confidence is a vote of no confidence." Implicit in your remarks is the idea that soldiers will see those actions as inherently contradictory and cynical. You suggest that the only way that one can support the troops is by supporting any mission established by the commander-in-chief.
You distort the situation. The US military is far more diverse than you imply. Many of our service men and women do in fact question their mission, especially those now serving second, third and fourth tours in an increasingly deteriorating situation. Far from being the liberators as promised by the architects of this war, Americans are now, in the words of one soldier, “just driving around waiting to be blown up”. I have no doubt that even those who question their mission continue to serve diligently and with pride if for no other reason than their loyalty to their comrades. Still many ask the larger question about why they are continually put into harm’s way.
My view is influenced by Vietnam combat. I went to that war with grave doubts about its purpose and necessity. Throughout my tour I took solace in every expression of antiwar sentiment I read about and in hearing debate in Congress to force the president to end the war. All that really mattered to me was keeping myself and my buddies alive and ending what was a tragic mistake for my country. Opposition to the war did nothing to discourage my morale. That opposition, especially from my brother Vietnam Veterans Against the War, encouraged me immensely during my time in combat. I welcomed the questioning because it meant that my fellow Americans were moving in a direction that, even if it did not save me, would spare others my fate.
So don’t tell me that the “troops won’t buy it.” I’ve met enough Iraq veterans to know that disagreement is far more widespread than you acknowledge. What I find disingenuous is the way you and other pro-war politicians use “the troops” as a shield to continue this disastrous war.
Sincerely,
Mark Fleming
Co A, 2nd Bn 8th Cavalry
1st Cavalry Division (Air Mobile)
Vietnam 1970-72
Fixer over at Alternate Brain has the best comment on yesterday's Senate (in)action.
What's going on in the Senate is pure and utter horseshit and if the American people can't see it for what it is at this point, they don't deserve to live in a free and democratic republic. Ladies and germs, when debate is squelched, the prime tenets of our society are being ignored.
[...]
Today, many are of the opinion that debate is somehow unAmerican. That talking about something, namely stopping the bloodshed being wrought in our name, will somehow hurt the troops, undermine them in some way. Ladies and gentlemen, the right of free debate is the reason they are supposedly 'fighting to preserve our freedoms'. As for undermining our troops, please pardon me but it doesn't matter what the troops think. It's their responsibility to follow their orders, regardless of the debate taking place in Washington. The only thing that undermines the troops is turning our backs on them when they return injured and maimed, and we've done a hell of a lot of that since this disaster began.
[...]
Ladies and gentlemen, the enemy is emboldened when we don't debate. If we are now fighting the 'War on Terror', Osama bin Laden won the first battle because he has caused us to stray from the principles this mighty nation was founded on. If we stifle debate, usurping more of the 'inalienable rights' we (well, most of us, thank you Mr. Rutlege) have taken for granted for two centuries, he will have won another.
Fred Kaplan has a good review of BushCheney's FY2008 military budget at Slate. He sums up all the spending in and out of the Defense Department for a total of $739 billion.
The military budget that President Bush released today is much bigger than the official summaries let on. It's not $481.4 billion, as the Defense Department is claiming. No, a squint through the fine print of the White House and Pentagon budget documents reveals that the true request for new military-spending authority comes to $739 billion.
Measured in real terms (that is, adjusted for inflation), that's about one-third higher than the previous record for U.S. military spending, set in 1952, when more than 30,000 American soldiers were dying in the Korean War and the Pentagon was embarking on its massive Cold War rearmament drive.