A Letter from Mosul

Adam's Apple

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
4,092
Reaction score
448
Points
48
A Letter ffrom Mosul
by Cal Thomas, Human Events
02/13/2007

With the House debating this week how much “non-binding” grief to lay on President Bush about Iraq, I e-mailed a soldier friend of mine for his impressions of the increasingly amplified protests.

Army Sgt. Daniel Dobson, 22, of Grand Rapids, Mich., is on his second tour in Iraq. I asked him what he thinks of the growing opposition to the war. Writing from Mosul, he says he appreciates the freedom Americans have to protest, but adds:

“The American military has shown a stone-cold professional veneer throughout the seething debate raging over Iraq. Beneath that veneer, however, is a fuming, visceral hatred. We feel as though we have been betrayed by Congress.”

Sgt. Dobson believes the military is being hamstrung against an enemy with no reservations or restrictions:

“It is our overwhelming opinion that we have not been allowed to conduct the war to the fullest of our capability; neither do we feel that we should pull out because of a lack of ‘results.’ War is not a chemistry set with predetermined outcomes or complications. With a great army matched with an equally cunning enemy, we find ourselves in a difficult, but winnable fight. We do not seek results; rather, we seek total and unequivocal victory.”

It’s been a while since anyone spoke of “victory.” Critics ask war supporters to define the word. Sgt. Dobson makes an effort: “That victory is close at hand. With nearly 80 percent of all terrorist and insurgent activity within 50 miles of Baghdad, the sheer thought of not taking out this stronghold is madness. If we can eliminate 80 percent of terrorist activity, the war is nearly won. To throw away a battle of this magnificent importance would be to waste the suffering and the sacrifice of American service members.”

What of the effect on the troops from anti-war remarks on the streets and in Congress? Some assert it doesn’t hurt troop morale. Sgt. Dobson disagrees:

for full article:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19389
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
bullshit. as a career military man, I can say without doubt, that the deliberations of the congress about the military's mission were about as valuable as a bucket of warm spit. What difference did it make, or does it make? NONE. The guys in uniform will go wherever we are told to go and do whatever we are told to do with the utmost zeal and professionalism until we are told to stop. Shit..when I think back on all the boneheaded places I had to go and the things I had to do or stop doing because the civilians in DC changed their minds, the list is mindboggling. Who gives a shit? YOu go and kick ass and kill folks until they tell you to come home.

The US Military is nothing but the muscular arm of American foreign policy. Foreign policy is something that is open to debate in the congress and in the court of public opinion. When those factors shift, policy changes, and so, therefore, does the role of the muscular arm. If there are troops on the ground in Iraq who don't understand that dynamic and are, for some unjustified reason, MAD at Americans debating foreign policy, then shame on their commanders for not spelling out the limits of their role in all of this to them.
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
Great, but the issue here is morale, not ROE or change of mission. The Damnocrats are siding with the enemy, and that is a FACT, JACK.
no..it is a lie. democrats are participating in a debate about the wisdom of our military action in Iraq. that is the fact.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
no..it is a lie. democrats are participating in a debate about the wisdom of our military action in Iraq. that is the fact.
No, they are figuring out how to undermine without being caught in doing that. lots of links:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2751.html

House Democrats' New Strategy: Force Slow End to War

By: John Bresnahan
February 14, 2007 01:06 PM EST
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., center, flanked by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., left, and Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio. (AP Photo/Lawrence Jackson)
url:
PRINT ARTICLE EMAIL TO A FRIEND
RECOMMEND COMMENT Digg

Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options.

Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition's goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself.

The legislative strategy will be supplemented by a multimillion-dollar TV ad campaign designed to pressure vulnerable GOP incumbents into breaking with President Bush and forcing the administration to admit that the war is politically unsustainable.

As described by participants, the goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the anti-war movement -- the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field. That fear is why many Democrats have remained timid in challenging Bush, even as public support for the president and his Iraq policies have plunged.

Murtha and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have decided that they must take the lead in pressuring not only Republicans but also cautious Senate Democrats to take steps more aggressive than nonbinding resolutions in challenging the Bush administration.

The House strategy is being crafted quietly, even as the chamber is immersed this week in an emotional, albeit mostly symbolic, debate over a resolution expressing opposition to Bush's plan to "surge" 21,500 more troops into Iraq.

NPR's Interview with Rep. Murtha
Murtha, the powerful chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, will seek to attach a provision to an upcoming $93 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. It would restrict the deployment of troops to Iraq unless they meet certain levels adequate manpower, equipment and training to succeed in combat. That's a standard Murtha believes few of the units Bush intends to use for the surge would be able to meet.

In addition, Murtha, acting with the backing of the House Democratic leadership, will seek to limit the time and number of deployments by soldiers, Marines and National Guard units to Iraq, making it tougher for Pentagon officials to find the troops to replace units that are scheduled to rotate out of the country. Additional funding restrictions are also being considered by Murtha, such as prohibiting the creation of U.S. military bases inside Iraq, dismantling the notorious Abu Ghraib prison and closing the American detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"There's a D-Day coming in here, and it's going to start with the supplemental and finish with the '08 [defense] budget," said Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, who chairs the Air and Land Forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee.

Pelosi and other top Democrats are not yet prepared for an open battle with the White House over ending funding for the war, and they are wary of Republican claims that Democratic leaders would endanger the welfare of U.S. troops. The new approach of first reducing the number of troops available for the conflict, while maintaining funding levels for units already in the field, gives political cover to conservative House Democrats who are nervous about appearing "anti-military" while also mollifying the anti-war left, which has long been agitating for Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to be more aggressive.

"What we have staked out is a campaign to stop the war without cutting off funding" for the troops, said Tom Mazzie of Americans Against Escalation of the War in Iraq. "We call it the 'readiness strategy.'"

....
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
Right. That's why it's "non-binding". :rolleyes:
they are giving DUbya a chance to rethink his idiocy.... I think they are being more kind and congenial than he has any right to expect. If I were speaker of the house, I'd cut off all his funding today and force him to bring our troops out of harm's way and back home ASAP.
 

glockmail

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
7,700
Reaction score
436
Points
83
Location
The beautiful Yadkin Valley
they are giving DUbya a chance to rethink his idiocy.... I think they are being more kind and congenial than he has any right to expect. If I were speaker of the house, I'd cut off all his funding today and force him to bring our troops out of harm's way and back home ASAP.
Go with that as your talking points for your Hillary-fest. :eusa_drool:
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
Go with that as your talking points for your Hillary-fest. :eusa_drool:
as I said before, Hillary is not my candidate of choice, but if she wins the nomination, I will work to ensure her victory. Who you gonna put up? Newt the intern fucker, I hope!
 

glockmail

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
7,700
Reaction score
436
Points
83
Location
The beautiful Yadkin Valley
as I said before, Hillary is not my candidate of choice, but if she wins the nomination, I will work to ensure her victory. Who you gonna put up? Newt the intern f....er, I hope!
I've already stated who I think has the only chance of beating her. Either Mayor G or some guy with a 50.
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
Don't have the eyesight anymore. Besides, got too much to lose. Better some loner with no assets. Like you.
what have I ever said that would lead you to believe that I have no assets, or that I want to assassinate Hillary Clinton like YOU do?
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
they are giving DUbya a chance to rethink his idiocy.... I think they are being more kind and congenial than he has any right to expect. If I were speaker of the house, I'd cut off all his funding today and force him to bring our troops out of harm's way and back home ASAP.
No, the Dems do not have the guts to openly cut off funding. They are in the process of trying to go through the back door to stop funding.

The Democrats are best friend the terrosrists have
 

trobinett

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,832
Reaction score
162
Points
48
Location
Arkansas, The Ozarks
bullshit. as a career military man, I can say without doubt, that the deliberations of the congress about the military's mission were about as valuable as a bucket of warm spit. What difference did it make, or does it make? NONE. The guys in uniform will go wherever we are told to go and do whatever we are told to do with the utmost zeal and professionalism until we are told to stop. Shit..when I think back on all the boneheaded places I had to go and the things I had to do or stop doing because the civilians in DC changed their minds, the list is mindboggling. Who gives a shit? YOu go and kick ass and kill folks until they tell you to come home.

The US Military is nothing but the muscular arm of American foreign policy. Foreign policy is something that is open to debate in the congress and in the court of public opinion. When those factors shift, policy changes, and so, therefore, does the role of the muscular arm. If there are troops on the ground in Iraq who don't understand that dynamic and are, for some unjustified reason, MAD at Americans debating foreign policy, then shame on their commanders for not spelling out the limits of their role in all of this to them.
Much of what you say maineman I agree with.

My problem comes with the OPEN debate, that causes our efforts to suffer, and puts our troops in further danger.

Americans will debate ANYTHING, as we do here, but just as you would want us to be successful in our WOT, then we must present a united front.

This constant bickering, and open debating, like passing a worthless "non-binding" resolution, serves little purpose, other than political.

I'm only surprised, that the Administration hasn't come down harder on those, that have acted in such a traiterous manner.
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Much of what you say maineman I agree with.

My problem comes with the OPEN debate, that causes our efforts to suffer, and puts our troops in further danger.

Americans will debate ANYTHING, as we do here, but just as you would want us to be successful in our WOT, then we must present a united front.

This constant bickering, and open debating, like passing a worthless "non-binding" resolution, serves little purpose, other than political.

I'm only surprised, that the Administration hasn't come down harder on those, that have acted in such a traiterous manner.
Dems right down are acting on boarderline treason
 

glockmail

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
7,700
Reaction score
436
Points
83
Location
The beautiful Yadkin Valley
go with that approach in '08..it is bound to win over swing voters!
No, the Dems do not have the guts to openly cut off funding. They are in the process of trying to go through the back door to stop funding.

The Democrats are best friend the terrosrists have
I like that campaign tactic better. See? Republicans are way smarter. :)
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top