Question is Will Dems Listen to their voters

Bonnie

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2004
9,476
673
48
Wherever
the ones who armchair quarterback, or will they listen to those actually fighting in Iraq??????


Soldiers in Iraq Say Pullout Would Have Devastating Results

By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 6, 2006; Page A13

FORWARD OPERATING BASE SYKES, Iraq, Nov. 5 -- For the U.S. troops fighting in Iraq, the war is alternately violent and hopeful, sometimes very hot and sometimes very cold. It is dusty and muddy, calm and chaotic, deafeningly loud and eerily quiet.

The one thing the war is not, however, is finished, dozens of soldiers across the country said in interviews. And leaving Iraq now would have devastating consequences, they said.


Capt. Mike Lingenfelter of Panhandle, Tex., says it would be "an extreme betrayal" for U.S. troops to leave Iraq now. (By Josh White -- The Washington Post)


With a potentially historic U.S. midterm election on Tuesday and the war in Iraq a major issue at the polls, many soldiers said the United States should not abandon its effort here. Such a move, enlisted soldiers and officers said, would set Iraq on a path to civil war, give new life to the insurgency and create the possibility of a failed state after nearly four years of fighting to implant democracy.

"Take us out of that vacuum -- and it's on the edge now -- and boom, it would become a free-for-all," said Lt. Col. Mark Suich, who commands the 1st Squadron, 89th Cavalry Regiment just south of Baghdad. "It would be a raw contention for power. That would be the bloodiest piece of this war."

The soldiers declined to discuss the political jousting back home, but they expressed support for the Bush administration's approach to the war, which they described as sticking with a tumultuous situation to give Iraq a chance to stand on its own.

Leading Democrats have argued for a timeline to bring U.S. troops home, because obvious progress has been elusive, especially in Baghdad, and even some Republican lawmakers have recently called for a change in strategy. But soldiers criticized the idea of a precipitate withdrawal, largely because they believe their hard work would go for naught.

Capt. Jim Modlin, 26, of Oceanport, N.J., said he thought the situation in Iraq had improved between his deployment in 2003 and his return this year as a liaison officer to Iraqi security forces with the 3rd Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment, based here on FOB Sykes outside Tall Afar. Modlin described himself as more liberal than conservative and said he had already cast his absentee ballot in Texas. He said he believed that U.S. elected officials would lead the military in the right direction, regardless of what happens Tuesday.

"Pulling out now would be as bad or worse than going forward with no changes," Modlin said. "Sectarian violence would be rampant, democracy would cease to exist, and the rule of law would be decimated. It's not 'stay the course,' and it's not 'cut and run' or other political catchphrases. There are people's lives here. There are so many different dynamics that go on here that a simple solution just isn't possible."

Soldiers and officers had difficulty conveying what victory in Iraq would look like or exactly how to achieve it. In some ways, victory is a moving target, they said, one that relies heavily on the Iraqi people gaining trust in the Iraqi security forces and the ability of the Iraqi government to support essential services. In northern Iraq, officials said they expect to hand over major parts of the country to Iraqi forces within the next five months, but most agree that Baghdad will be far behind.

Even if top commanders meet their goal of transferring authority to the Iraqi army within the next 18 months, a U.S. presence long after that is likely, several officers said.

"This is a worthwhile endeavor," said Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of Multinational Division North and the 25th Infantry Division. "Nothing that is worthwhile is usually easy, and we need to give this more time for it to all come together. We all want to come home, but we have a significant investment here, and we need to give the Iraqi army and the Iraqi people a chance to succeed."

Numerous soldiers expressed frustration with the nature of the fight, which many said amounted to driving around and waiting for the enemy to engage them, often with roadside bombs, known within the military as improvised

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/05/AR2006110500770.html
 
Yeah Bonnie, Hopefully some will listen to you that figure I'm either out to bash Bush or the Democrats. Go figure. I could care less, as long as they hear that both sides are reading the results wrong and get out their own message to do what is right!

I owe you rep!
 
I'll bet the WaPo gritted their teeth so hard they almost broke them when they printed that article. :tng:
 
Spreken Ze Dooch, Rummy?
Rummy is gone at last, but he’s not forgotten. He has yet to stand trial for his crimes, and it appears that he will do so in a German court of law. Fitting, perhaps, for it was at Nuremberg that the last batch of Nazis were tried. I would much rather he stand trial here, preferably after being frog-marched out of the Pentagon and carted through the streets like the Hunchback of Notre Dame. But I no longer have any faith in our corrupt legal system. In a society where a poor Black man gets the death sentence for murdering one measly family while a rich white man sexually humiliates thousands of innocent Iraqis and walks FREE, one can no longer be assured that the hackysack of justice will be served on a level playing field.

That's why we so desperately need the International Criminal Court. Under the ICC, American leaders and military personnel who violate the Constitutional rights of suspected terrorists would no longer be permitted to hide behind the U.S. Constitution. It's a Living, Breathing Document, but it wasn't built to withstand the rampant abuses Repugnikkans have been inflicting upon it since Bush stole the election. The poor thing is stretched way too thin. It's high time we let the International Community take over our justice system, so that we can focus the full power of the Bill of Rights on more important matters - like protecting our children from Ten Commandments displays.

Perhaps one day we will have a President who cares less about U.S. sovereignty than she does about her standing in the court of World Opinion, and Rummy and the entire Bush junta will finally stand before Luis Moreno-Ocampo as our Founding Fathers intended. Until then, we'll have to put our trust in the Germans, a peaceloving people whose long-standing committment to human rights was only briefly interrupted by the unmistakable stench of burning flesh coming from the direction they carted all those meddlesome Jews off to.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/
 
Numerous soldiers expressed frustration with the nature of the fight, which many said amounted to driving around and waiting for the enemy to engage them, often with roadside bombs, known within the military as improvised

So it would seem that the best case scenario according to the soldiers quoted, would not be a change in number of soldiers in Iraq (maybe an increase but definitely not a decrease), but rather a change in tactics?
 
So it would seem that the best case scenario according to the soldiers quoted, would not be a change in number of soldiers in Iraq (maybe an increase but definitely not a decrease), but rather a change in tactics?

No change in tactics is going to both accomplish the mission in the most efficient manner AND meet poilitical correctness. That's the problem now, and as long as politicians are attempting to please everyone instead of doing what works, it will continue to be the problem, no matter how the troops are deployed.
 
No change in tactics is going to both accomplish the mission in the most efficient manner AND meet poilitical correctness. That's the problem now, and as long as politicians are attempting to please everyone instead of doing what works, it will continue to be the problem, no matter how the troops are deployed.

Well if we abandoned Political correctness for a moment, what would you have them do? What change in tactics would you put in to place?
 
No change in tactics is going to both accomplish the mission in the most efficient manner AND meet poilitical correctness. That's the problem now, and as long as politicians are attempting to please everyone instead of doing what works, it will continue to be the problem, no matter how the troops are deployed.


I don't think we're talking about political correctness. I think we're talking about competence.... something that's been sadly lacking til now.

So what's the military objective? What do you get if you stay the course and more lives are lost?
 
No change in tactics is going to both accomplish the mission in the most efficient manner AND meet poilitical correctness. That's the problem now, and as long as politicians are attempting to please everyone instead of doing what works, it will continue to be the problem, no matter how the troops are deployed.

Which is the complete and utter truth on the matter. but people dont want to hear the truth. They are comfortable with the lies.
 
I don't think we're talking about political correctness. I think we're talking about competence.... something that's been sadly lacking til now.

It's all about political correctness. It's about World opinion, and it's about no matter what he does, nor how well, he's got lefties and the MSM twisting it around into either a "Bush lied", or Bush failed" concoction.

When you snivelling do-gooders, who have NO morals when it comes to abortion or euthenizing the indigent apply the same lack of morals to our enemies, something could easily be done. But for some reason, y'all get your high horses and suddenly start proclaiming this moralistic bull right out of the Code of Chivalry.

It just slays me that y'all have more compassion for the enemies of our culture and Nation than you do for your own. Y'all should become Iranian citizens ... it would assure the US victory.


So what's the military objective? What do you get if you stay the course and more lives are lost?

Depends on how you define "stay the course." If it's the BS lefty version that y'all managed to get the MSM to inundate the American people with for a solid week prior to the election, then you'll have to sell THAT elsewhere.

And going back to paragraph one, you can save that "lives lost" crap for someone who might actually think you really care.

All you really care about is how you can spin whatever happens, good or bad, into a political win. "Lives lost is just a pawn in your game."
 
I don't think we're talking about political correctness. I think we're talking about competence.... something that's been sadly lacking til now.

So what's the military objective? What do you get if you stay the course and more lives are lost?

A free and Democratic Iraq. What do you think the objective is? Right now its maintain the peace until the Iraqis can support themselves.

This has been what we have been doing from the beginning and it working well till now. But people arent patient enough to see things through. you guys want results immediately or its a failure.

This is exactly why we should let the war be run by the generals and not by lay people at home.
 
Well if we abandoned Political correctness for a moment, what would you have them do? What change in tactics would you put in to place?

I wouldn't have to change tactics. I'm an enlisted man, not an officer. I don't write tactical doctrine.

What I would do is kick out every American civilian and politician in Iraq, except for the experts on rebuilding infrastructure. I'd put military personnel in charge of rebuilding a nation and terminating any and all threats to it.

Then I'd sit back and watch.
 
I wouldn't have to change tactics. I'm an enlisted man, not an officer. I don't write tactical doctrine.

What I would do is kick out every American civilian and politician in Iraq, except for the experts on rebuilding infrastructure. I'd put military personnel in charge of rebuilding a nation and terminating any and all threats to it.

Then I'd sit back and watch.

I'm way less qualified, never served. I read from someone that is though, stop building schools, water delivery, oil delivery. Kill until they stop attacking. THEN try to win hearts and minds. Until then, it's pointless, they keep undoing and there is no security. Secure, then rebuild.
 
A free and Democratic Iraq. What do you think the objective is? Right now its maintain the peace until the Iraqis can support themselves.

This has been what we have been doing from the beginning and it working well till now. But people arent patient enough to see things through. you guys want results immediately or its a failure.

This is exactly why we should let the war be run by the generals and not by lay people at home.

It's always been the same objective. The left just can't keep their eyes on it because they're too busy making up their own stories.

We don't know the plan being used ISN'T working. The MSM and left say so, and managed to convince enough conservatives that they allowed Dems to take control of Congress.

But the troops say what they are doing is working.

Wonder who knows better:rolleyes:
 
It's always been the same objective. The left just can't keep their eyes on it because they're too busy making up their own stories.

We don't know the plan being used ISN'T working. The MSM and left say so, and managed to convince enough conservatives that they allowed Dems to take control of Congress.

But the troops say what they are doing is working.

Wonder who knows better:rolleyes:

I've never wondered. Unfortunately the same was said and was true in Vietnam. We were winning, but the politicians would not let that stand. It's still up for grabs how this will turn out, but I'm not hopeful.
 
I'm way less qualified, never served. I read from someone that is though, stop building schools, water delivery, oil delivery. Kill until they stop attacking. THEN try to win hearts and minds. Until then, it's pointless, they keep undoing and there is no security. Secure, then rebuild.

The inherent problem with that is you have to protect the noncombatants and infrastructure as much as possible. The more infrastructure you destroy, the more refugees you have, and the more enemies you make.

However, the most effective method I could think of would be to form two lines encircling each city. One makes sure no one comes in while the other meets in the middle. Anything and/or one that doesn't look right, gets dead.

But you make them stand and fight. In such a situation, they neither have means of supply nor escape.
 

Forum List

Back
Top