scribblings from a deist transhumanist libertarian minarchist citizen soldier

Contrast the difference

Posted by Trevor in under other on Dec 7th, 2005 | View Comments |

Calling President Bush’s plan in Iraq a ‘failed strategy,’ Dean said he and most Democrats support bringing home an estimated 80,000 National Guard and reserve troops within the next six months.

He said that he backed the redeployment of 20,000 troops to Afghanistan and a force in the Middle East to deal with al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, but not in Iraq.

I know we’re going to win,” Bush told reporters at the White House. “Our troops need to hear not only are they supported, but that we have got a strategy that will win.”

Two different parties, two different men and two different outlooks. Which one do you prefer? As a soldier, I’m certainly not going to support the guy who tells me that it was all for nothing, let’s get out while the getting is good. All those deaths were meaningless. All those shattered limbs for nought. All you soldiers who fought, sweated, cried and worried in the dirt of Iraq – it doesn’t matter. All those children you passed candy and toys too – abandon them. All the water pipes you laid, all the generators you installed, all the buildings you built – abandon them. The Iraqis you trained – say goodbye, they’re on their own. Terrorism has won. The head choppers and their ilk are just too persistent for us.

Or, I could support the guy I didn’t vote for, President Bush, who despite all the things I disagree with him about, has my respect in this matter. Despite the long hours here, despite that fact that my feet hurt every day and I have a knot in my back the size of Texas. Regardless of the loud booms and the bags under my eyes. Despite missing my wife terribly and wishing I was someplace else half the time.

You can’t come to the game and then throw down the ball halfway through, give the bird to your teammates and walk off the field. Because that is what losers do.

The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq’s new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected.

Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more.”

President George W. Bush

Now go read the actual document outlining the plan for victory. Chew on it. Ponder it. Digest it. Then drop me a line if you have any questions. I’m just a sergeant but I know how to be a winner. I refuse to drop the ball and walk off the field.

Similar Posts:

| Print This Post Print This Post |
  • Pat A
    True, basic training takes six weeks, but developing leaders takes time, especially senior leadership. The green recruits need leaders and we're trying to train them to serve with honor. Saddam's Army was used oppress the people. That is not whatour guys are fighting (and winning) for.

    And Dean doesn't know Jack sh-- about how the military is structured if he is advocating sending all the Guard and Reserve home now "because they don't need to be over there". Guess he doesn't know about the support functions that are resident in the Guard and Reserve. Dumba$$!

    And Murtha, that doddering old fool. Redeploy to Okinawa? Every time I see him pontificating on TV (which is often. The anti-war media just love him)I'm even more convinced he is senile.
  • Thanks for anwering the question of why Iraqis can't be trained to take over more quickly. I always assumed it had something to do with them not being Americans and needing a lot more than just Basic to produce results. I'm so frustrated by this latest whine by the anti-war types who haven't a clue what it takes to create a fighting force out of nearly thin air. (and thanks for another great quote!)
  • Of course the Iraqi police and army have to be trained and ready to do the job ASAP. There is, of course, one complexity here that gets missed sometimes. Americans, as we say, are fighting here rather than at home. Iraqis don't have that luxury. This can be an advantage, as they know their own country in a way that no foreigner can. But there's another side to it too. In Vietnam, Americans would get impatient with the "fighting qualities" of many of the anti-Communist South Vietnamese soldiers (the Arvins.) It would then be pointed out by some of the Vietnamese (including corrupt leaders) that "we will be here when you go home." And what exactly did that mean? You can analyze what it meant all day, but we know what happened in the end. In the end, as the Hanoi forces swoooped down after the Americans pulled out and the South Vietnamese had to do or die, the Democrats in the U.S. Congress (and let's not forget the Republicans)cut off all military aid to the South---and forget U.S. airpower knocking out the Communist troops after the so-called "truce." (Even if Nixon would have done that, the Dems' success with Watergate had knocked him out of the picture.) Everything fell in the South. And then Saigon, the capital, fell too. (I know, I was there.) The Vietnamese who had allied themselves with the Americans and who did not escape were either killed, committed suicide, or sent to "re-education camp" for years where they could later return to life as cyclo drivers in "liberated" Vietnam.

    dcr
  • Harley
    Dr. Forbush,

    I'm a democrat at heart, but because of the likes of
    Howard Dean, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha and others in the party, I've been forced to withdraw my party support for the time being. Joe Liebermann is among the few democrats speaking sensibly at this time.

    Most of your comments are reasonable and reflect my understanding of the way Bush and the generals are conducting operations. Our demo leaders, though, are using convoluted thinking and developing party strategy behind closed doors, putting our party in shambles. Even you have to use "actually saying" to attempt to clarify your interpretation of their double-talk.

    When our party changes leadership and speaks honestly and with integrity, I'll return to the fold. In the meantime, my support is with those who wholeheartedly and enthusiastically support our country in its quest for victory!
  • Dr. Forbrush,

    You bring up some interesting points.

    However, from what I can see, the Iraqis are being put in front and taking over the "hard" stuff. They are the ones who are being attacked and killed much more often than coalition forces.

    There are HUGE cultural differences. Westerners have a completely different mindset. You can't look at how long it takes to make a soldier in the United States and apply it to Iraq. How long did it take you to learn to write eloquently? A lifetime? Changing Iraq into a nation of free thinkers (what I hope for) will take at least two generations.

    Lives are being used up in a massive effort to make things better here. There are lots of whiners and self-important poobahs on the sidelines filling the role of armchair quarterback. I would challenge them to trade places with someone in Iraq for a year or so.

    As always, we will all be judged by those who write the history books.

    Kitanis,

    Yep. It's a crazy world full of crazy people and lying politicians.

    Thanks for dropping by everyone.
  • I understand your sentiment. If Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi or John Murtha were saying that everything was for naught. But, they are actually saying that we have done what we set out to do. They are saying that the Iraqis need to take responsibility for their country. If the US keeps its troops there for another year it will be harder not easier for us to bring the troops home. The Iraqis are like welfare recipients that find it easier to take the handout than to do the hard work. If you have any doubt, ask yourself why we can get a US soldier ready to fight in a short boot camp, but its taken more than 18 months of training and we only have 1 Iraqi battalion that is ready to fight? Why? If we make the Iraqis take over the more difficult areas they will be motivated to work harder for their country. If the US troops are brought to the sidelines and then called in when the Iraqis show that they are struggling, we will build the Iraqi army and the Iraqi people will begin to support their own troops and government.
  • Cubesteak
    I admire you for supporting the President even though you didn't vote for him. We can't leave before the job is done, and those of us back in the States appreciate the work you are doing. Thank you!
  • Kitanis
    Well after reading the statement by Mr. Dean and the strateby that the president endorses... I can fairly say that you and I would both agree about the policy if we were talking face to face. Despite the differences I have with the President and the Republican Party action in the last three years..

    "Calling President Bush’s plan in Iraq a ‘failed strategy,’ Dean said he and most Democrats support bringing home an estimated 80,000 National Guard and reserve troops within the next six months.

    He said that he backed the redeployment of 20,000 troops to Afghanistan and a force in the Middle East to deal with al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, but not in Iraq."

    Howard Dean said in the 2nd paragraph the most blatant form of double speak I can imagine.. To fight a Al Qaeda leader in Iraq by Not being in Iraq but somewhere else in the region. Yep.. thats smart.. I am only a Master Sergeant.. but that makes perfect sense to me.. if your a idiot that is..

    Well FCC rules keep me from typing it.
  • Mary-Lou
    The ones who feel they were there for no reason are the ones who will have the guilt to deal with for the rest of their lives. Making HOME safe is not meaningless
blog comments powered by Disqus
Powered by Wordpress | Designed by Elegant Themes