On The 'Surge'

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Annie, Feb 14, 2007.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    It will be interesting to hear more from some wise members of Congress of what a 'failure' the surge will be, considering one of the largest problems seems to have left for *gasp* Iran in reaction to it, before it started:

    http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=2872953

     
  2. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    What do the troops think of the Dems and their lack of support?

    Hit the link and watch the video

    ABC Showcases Take from Soldiers in Iraq on Anti-Surge Resolution: 'Sick' & 'Treason'
    Posted by Brent Baker on February 13, 2007 - 20:59.
    Of the broadcast network evening newscast stories Tuesday night on the House debate over the non-binding resolution that “disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush...to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq,” only ABC’s Jake Tapper included the views of soldiers in Iraq. Tapper's report on World News featured soundbites from two Army Sergeants in Ramadi, and both condemned the resolution. First Sergeant Louis Barnum declared: “It makes me sick. I was born and raised a Democrat, but when I see that it just kind of makes me sad.” Sergeant Brian Orzechoski went even further: “I don't want to bad-mouth the President at all. I mean, to me it's treason.”

    Video clip (30 seconds): Real (1 MB) or Windows Media (1.1 MB), plus MP3 (200 KB) Audio is over-modulated, but that's how it aired on ABC's DC station.

    Earlier in the story, Tapper ran clips from those for and against it as he highlighted how Maryland Republican Wayne Gilchrest is in favor, before noting that “most Republicans criticized the non-binding resolution as worthless.”

    One of the anti-resolution soundbites came from Republican Congressman Jack Kingston of Georgia on the House floor:


    “If the troops in Baghdad watched what Congress was doing today, they would be outraged. Fortunately for us and the free world, they don't sit around and watch C-SPAN and what silly politicians do.”

    Jake Tapper took up the challenge: “ABC News asked these Army Sergeants in Ramadi what they thought of the resolution.”

    Army First Sergeant Louis Barnum: “It makes me sick. I was born and raised a Democrat, but when I see that it just kind of makes me sad.”

    Sergeant Brian Orzechoski: “I don’t want to bad-mouth the President at all. I mean, to me it’s treason.”

    Tapper concluded his story: “It is a very simple resolution, Charlie. It basically just says that the Congress supports the troops but opposes the President's plan. It is not binding, it does not cut off any funding for the troops. But simple or not, Charlie, the debate, as you heard, was passionate.”

    In highlighting anti-war effort remarks from soldiers in Iraq, ABC and Tapper echoed how the January 26 NBC Nightly News gave rare voice to soldiers in Iraq disturbed by criticism of the war back home. My NewsBusters item recounted (with video):

    Embedded with the Army's Stryker Brigade's Apache Company (the Fort Lewis, Washington-based 1st Battalion of the 23rd Infantry Regiment in Hurriya, Richard Engel relayed how “troops here say they are increasingly frustrated by American criticism of the war. Many take it personally, believing it is also criticism of what they've been fighting for. Twenty-one-year-old Specialist Tyler Johnson is on his first tour in Iraq. He thinks skeptics should come over and see what it's like firsthand before criticizing." Johnson asserted: “You may support or say we support the troops, but, so you're not supporting what they do, what they're here sweating for, what we bleed for, what we die for. It just don't make sense to me."

    Staff Sergeant Manuel Sahagun directly took on the spin of war critics, complaining that “one thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops, but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way." Engel soon powerfully concluded: "Apache Company has lost two soldiers, and now worries their country may be abandoning the mission they died for.”

    Exactly two weeks later, however, the February 9 NBC Nightly News ran a dispatch from Engel which showcased soldiers who want the war to end. My NewsBusters item reported:

    Engel ran just one soundbite, from a Staff Sergeant with the First Infantry Division, who declared: “It is pretty much almost a lost cause. I mean, nothing it seems we do is doing any good. Every country goes through a civil war. So, I mean, maybe it'd be better for them to have a civil war and hash it out and then try to help them after that." Engel added about the unit he had traveled with which narrowly escaped an IED explosion: “They all told me it's time to end this war. And, Brian [Williams], the soldiers also asked why it seems from here there are no plans to end the war, just discussions of battle tactics?"

    http://newsbusters.org/node/10816
     
  3. maineman
    Offline

    maineman BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    13,003
    Thanks Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    guess
    Ratings:
    +572
    "...from a Staff Sergeant with the First Infantry Division, who declared: “It is pretty much almost a lost cause. I mean, nothing it seems we do is doing any good. Every country goes through a civil war. So, I mean, maybe it'd be better for them to have a civil war and hash it out and then try to help them after that." Engel added about the unit he had traveled with which narrowly escaped an IED explosion: “They all told me it's time to end this war. And, Brian [Williams], the soldiers also asked why it seems from here there are no plans to end the war, just discussions of battle tactics."

    This quote would seem to indicate that there are troops in Iraq who feel, as I do, that this thing has gone beyond the point where we can do any good. Are these men's opinions not equally valid?
     
  4. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Of course they and you are entitled to their opinion. At the same time, can a staff sergeant see 'the big picture'? Can you or I?
     
  5. maineman
    Offline

    maineman BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    13,003
    Thanks Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    guess
    Ratings:
    +572
    or are young infantrymen really qualified to judge the tenor of the debate at home?

    You yourself have admitted that you are terribly disappointed in the way this administration has prosecuted this war. Why do you have such faith in their strategic vision if their execution sucks as badly as it does?
     
  6. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Actually I'd say that the young infantrymen have grown up reading papers and watching the news, so they do have a basis for judging the tenor of such.

    On the other hand, those 'on the ground' in a battle, can always judge the war by what they are seeing, where they are at any given point in time.

    As for my 'faith', that would be too strong a term. Yes, they have disappointed me, the administration. At the same time, the reason for doing this is still valid and I hope they are able to accomplish that goal.
     
  7. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    The troops on the front line, are seeing thier efforts be undermined by the left
    as put by Army First Sergeant Louis Barnum: “It makes me sick. I was born and raised a Democrat, but when I see that it just kind of makes me sad.”
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. glockmail
    Offline

    glockmail BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    7,700
    Thanks Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The beautiful Yadkin Valley
    Ratings:
    +438
    One word: Treason.
     
  9. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    It seems the Democrats have not changed much since the Civil War. In fact, it would seem the same Dems in elected office during the Civil War and the same ones in offcie today

    In both cases, the Democrats are on the wrong side of history


    During the American Civil War, a majority of Ohioans supported the war effort and the Republican Party, although there was a sizable minority, known as the Peace Democrats or the Copperheads, who opposed the conflict. One of the initial reasons for why the Peace Democrats did not support the Northern war effort was that a sizable number of white Ohioans, especially those living along the Ohio River, had migrated to the state from slaveholding states. While these people could not legally own slaves in Ohio, many of these people did have family members residing further south who owned African American slaves. These people oftentimes sympathized with slaveholders, agreeing with many white Southerners that the federal government did not have the power to limit slavery's existence. Some Peace Democrats also feared that President Abraham Lincoln intended to free the slaves. White Ohioans who objected to slavery's end, usually on racist grounds, feared that African Americans would flood the North looking for jobs if they were given their freedom. These white Ohioans did not want to compete with African Americans for employment.

    Peace Democrats preferred compromise to warfare as a way of settling differences between the North and the South. Several Ohioans participated in a peace convention during early 1861. The convention was held in Washington, DC, and the delegates hoped to convince President Lincoln to either acquiesce to the Confederacy's demands to get its citizens to rejoin the Union or to simply let the Southern states leave the United States. Lincoln ignored the peace convention's attempt to end the conflict peacefully. Politically, most people who participated in the peace convention affiliated themselves with the Peace Democrats. Their opponents nicknamed them Copperheads, describing the Peace Democrats as poisonous snakes waiting to strike blow in favor of the South. The first reference to Peace Democrats as Copperheads occurred in Ohio in 1861.

    Clement Vallandigham was the most well-known Peace Democrat in Ohio. He helped organize a rally for the Democratic Party at Mount Vernon, Ohio, held on May 1, 1863. Peace Democrats Vallandigham, Samuel Cox, and George Pendleton all delivered speeches denouncing General Order No. 38. In April 1863, General Ambrose Burnside, commander of the Department of Ohio, issued General Order No. 38. Burnside situated his headquarters in Cincinnati. Located on the Ohio River, just north of the slave state of Kentucky, Cincinnati had a number of residents sympathetic to the Confederacy. Burnside hoped to intimidate Confederate sympathizers with General Order No. 38.

    General Order No. 38 stated:

    The habit of declaring sympathy for the enemy will not be allowed in this department. Persons committing such offenses will be at once arrested with a view of being tried. . .or sent beyond our lines into the lines of their friends. It must be understood that treason, expressed or implied, will not be tolerated in this department.
    Burnside also declared that, in certain cases, violations of General Order No. 38 could result in death.

    Vallandigham so opposed the order that he purportedly stated that he "despised it, spit upon it, trampled it under his feet." He also supposedly encouraged his fellow Peace Democrats to openly resist Burnside and his order. Vallandigham went on to chastise President Lincoln for not seeking a peaceable and immediate end to the Civil War and for allowing General Burnside to thwart citizen rights under a free government.

    In attendance at the Mount Vernon rally were two army officers under Burnside's command. They reported to Burnside that Vallandigham had violated General Order No. 38. The general ordered the immediate arrest of the Copperhead. On May 5, 1863, a company of soldiers arrested Vallandigham at his home in Dayton and brought the man to Cincinnati to stand trial.

    Burnside charged Vallandigham with the following crimes:

    Publicly expressing, in violation of General Orders No. 38, from Head-quarters Department of Ohio, sympathy for those in arms against the Government of the United States, and declaring disloyal sentiments and opinions, with the object and purpose of weakening the power of the Government in its efforts to suppress an unlawful rebellion.
    A military tribunal heard the case, and Vallandigham offered no serious defense against the charges, contending that military courts had no jurisdiction over his case. The tribunal found Vallandigham guilty and sentenced him to remain in a United States prison for the remainder of the war.

    Vallandigham's attorney, George Pugh, appealed the tribunal's decision to Humphrey Leavitt, a judge on the federal circuit court. Pugh, like his client, claimed that the military court did not have proper jurisdiction in this case and had violated Vallandigham's constitutional rights. Judge Leavitt rejected Vallandigham's argument, agreeing with General Burnside that military authority was necessary during a time of war to ensure that opponents to the United States Constitution, in this case supporters of the Confederacy, would not succeed in overthrowing the Constitution and the rights that it guaranteed United States citizens.

    As a result of Leavitt's decision, authorities were to send Vallandigham to federal prison. President Lincoln feared that Peace Democrats across the North might rise up to prevent Vallandigham's detention. The president commuted Vallandigham's sentence to exile in the Confederacy. On May 25, Burnside sent Vallandigham into Confederate lines.

    Some Peace Democrats resorted to more radical means, including subversion, to protest the Civil War. Some of these men formed a secret society known as the Order of American Knights or the Sons of Liberty. In February 1864, Vallandigham was elected supreme commander of the organization. Ohio government officials estimated that between eighty thousand and 110,000 Ohioans belonged to the Order of American Knights, but most historians discount these numbers as being dramatically higher than the group's actual numbers.

    Rumors circulated throughout the North during 1864 that the Sons of Liberty intended to free Southern prisoners at several prisoner of war camps, including at Johnson's Island and Camp Chase, in Ohio. These freed prisoners would form the basis of a new Confederate army that would operate in the heart of the Union. Supposedly, General John Hunt Morgan, who had raided Ohio the previous year, would return to the state and assist this new army. The plot never materialized. William Rosecrans, assigned to oversee the Department of Missouri, discovered the planned uprising and warned Northern governors to remain cautious. John Brough, Ohio's governor, sent out spies to infiltrate the Sons of Liberty's ranks. These men succeeded and stopped the uprising before it could occur. Confederate supporters hoped to capture the Michigan, a gunboat operating on Lake Erie near Sandusky. They would then use the gunboat to free Confederate prisoners at Johnson Island. Union authorities arrested the plot's ringleader, Charles Cole, and squelched any of the other Sons of Liberty's plans.

    Rosecrans' and Brough's decisive actions in 1864 helped subdue the Sons of Liberty. Northern battlefield victories in 1864 also convinced many Ohioans, including reluctant or half-hearted supporters of the Union war effort, that the war would end shortly in a Northern victory. As a result of these events, the Peace Democrats began to decline in power.

    http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=616
     
  10. maineman
    Offline

    maineman BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    13,003
    Thanks Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    guess
    Ratings:
    +572
    so Louis Barnum is now EVERYMAN as far as attitudes of the troops go? And the first sergeant quoted at the end of your cute cut and paste job.....what is he? chopped liver?
     

Share This Page