I wish the military were making the decisions, but I fear too much of this mess is being directed by politicians who want the profits afforded by war to buy their reelection. This works on both sides of the aisle. my second wish is that everyone would realize that God and Allah are two names for the same thing. The differences in religions are NOT philosophical, they are cultural.

"start trusting the experts..." Which experts? Some of the experts want us to get out of Iraq as soon as possible.

And, that was the weakest defense of white phosphorus use I've seen yet. Bullets are chemical because of the chemical reaction in the shell???!!! Is this guy kidding? White phosophorus powder, exploding in the air, burns the skin off of those who are unfortunate enough to be in the area. I've seen the pictures. You guys can talk all you want about whether or not this is a chemical weapon. The rest of the world just looks on in horror. Yetter, I'll see your 31 years and raise you Murtha's 36 years in the Marines. If you dismiss someone's opinion based on no military service, you should, by all rights, defer to Murtha, who has more years than you.

Bill,

Has Murtha been saying anything specifically about WP? I don't seem to recall any comments by Murtha about it, so why do you bring him up?

Oh, sorry, I have 0 military experience, I guess I'll just go to the back of the bus now...

Later,

I bring up Murtha because he's one of the "experts" I assume Yetter wants us to listen to. Yetter said "listen to the experts." Murtha is a 36 year Marine veteran.

In my opinion, having no military experience does not mean you go to the back of the bus. We have a civilian secular government here. Non-military citizens make the decisions and the military carries out its orders. The military is not supposed to run things in this country.

PRsings,

I'll tell you what: ask any imam or preacher or bishop or rabbi whether or not Allah and God are "two names for the same thing."

They most certainly do not have philosophies in common. The only thing they have in common is that they are monotheisitic gods. Any other similarites come as the result of your lack of knowledge on the subject.

What binds people together?

A common enemy or shared hatred.

This is true in personal relationships as it is in global politics.

This is how humans behave.

What may prevent a Civil War in Iraq? The common enemy and shared hatred for, hmmmmm, America.

Of course, BushCo will claim/spin credit* for all this (rose garden coloured glasses) -- but, unless the US keeps an economic interest in the oil, it will be a failed war.

And, once the shared enmity wears off (which it will, once the US departs), the in-fighting will begin in earnest.

All, while America has sloppily handled its own Homeland Security and ability to take care of itself...the fall of Rome has just occurred and no one in Rome noticed.

* FOR CLARITY:

BushCo will spin to take credit for democracy/freedom...

...however, his True Base, who will have reaped no long term value will abandon him (Donations to his Library will come from the collection plate, not corporations)...

...regardless, the spin will devolve entropically upon the eventual split of Iraq into 2/3 separate nations.

Your claims that withdrawing "prematurely" from Irag & Afganistan will render us ineffective seems like speculation to me. And your argument regarding white phosphorus is distraction at best. All you are doing is contradicting it being called a "chemical" weapon which has no bearing on the fact that it may produce chemical weapon-like harm to those it is used around. When people are skeptical about something, in this case, a war, they tend to find reasons to validate that skepticism. This is the trouble with starting a war without a lot of support both internationally and domestically. In fact, if the Bush Administration didn't expect this to happen, they are even more out of touch with reality than I thought. One more thing (that war-supporters don't seem to be understanding), radical Islam is a fire that has been built on a history of bad Israeli and American foreign policy (not that Islam hasn't contributed to this rift). And to fight that fire with more bad policy will not work. It would be nice to KNOW that this is a justified war. As a adventurous male myself, I enjoy a mission, a fight, something to die for. But the truth is, outside a defense against invasion, there is always an alternative to war, especially this one.

Bill,

Unless Murtha has said anything one way or the other about WP, I see no need to bring him up within a discussion about whether WP is a chemical weapon or not.

And maybe you have no problem with my (or others) lack of military service, but 99% of the anti-war left brays that, if you are going to support the war, unless you also serve and fight in that war your opinions have 0 validity.

Later,

I accept your challange, and I deeply respect your service to the country.

For some reason the comment system wouldn't let me post the rest of my reply, so I have put it up in this post at Seeing the Forest.

Regards.

bill, WP is not used in a powdered form. I don't even know if it occurs in a powdered form. In any event, these shells do not explode.

White Phosphorus is a waxy substance, impregnated into felt wedges (thinking burning pie slices), ejected from the base of a projectile.

The pictures you have seen, did they happen to come from the Rai News 24 documentary? If so, you still haven't seen white phosphorus injuries, as there was not a soul in that film killed by white phophorus among all the bodies they show. But don't aks me, ask Chris Milroy, professor of forensic pathology:

He reported that "nothing indicates to me that the bodies have been burnt". They had turned black and lost their skin "through decomposition". We don't yet know how these people died.

I figured as much on my own when I saw maggots swarming on some of the bodies and obvious signs of decay on others, but it is nice to have an expert opinion there as well.

Bill, I'd also have to argue that Murtha is anything but an "expert" when it come to the military. He hasn't been "in" for over 30 years, and not only have the weapons and tactics changed, so has force structure and doctrine in every branch. If we needed an expert on Vietnam of Korea, John Murtha would be an expert, but his knowledge of a Vietnam era military is about as applicable today as is the knowledge of someone in the computer industry 30 years ago would be working with Microsoft and Sun today. I thank the congressman for his service, but he is no longer a military expert. Lik emany of the weapons fomr his time period, his knowledge of warfare is obsolete.

Mr Yetter, on the other hand, is recently retired from active duty, and still works for the military as a civilain highly valued for his knowledge. I think most readers would be able to detemine who the real expert really is.

I do agree with you though, bill, that you can have a valid opinion without serving. I do seem to recall it is the left that keep telling us "chickenhawks" to join up if we don't agree with them, however, so perhaps they don't agree with us.

Bill, nice try, but there is a problem with you “seeing” my 31 years continuous active duty with John Mutha’s 37 years of reserve USMC duty. You better go back to his website and get your facts straightened out, because you are beginning to look like the long-eared mascot of your party. Based on John Murtha’s website, I can account for something less than 15 years total active USMC status. His last year of active USMC duty was 1967 – the year I joined. You owe me in the neighborhood of one and a half decades of active service from somewhere, Bill.

I am at odds with Murtha about his prescribed policy of cutting and running instead of seeing Iraq to a victorious conclusion, not about WP; so separate those two thoughts. I do not belittle Murtha for his USMC service/experience. In fact, I took issue with another conservative who insinuated that Murtha was a passed-over officer; in other words a substandard performer. So get off any idea that I have attacked his service.

Bill, I walked the walk. I know who controls the military, but you are confused about who runs the military and who runs the country. Nobody, including the military, wants the military to run the country. But the politicians do not run the military, either. Congress has oversight, resources requested budgets, and can institute constraints legislatively. However, National Command Authority rests solely with the CINC, the president – not the Congress. When it comes to the execution of orders, the running of things is turned over to the military. Why? Because that is where the experts live. The military doesn't legislate and the Congress doesn't command battlefields.

I’m not even going to address your absurd comments about WP. You can find all the facts about WP on this site, if you will take just a few objective minutes to scroll and read. I will give no credence to the pictures you reference because they are not validated by a weapons effect qualified pathologist. I saw the same pictures and do not see the results of WP, and I won’t waste any more of my time arguing about it. Read this site if you have the courage to explore facts. Don’t just read the articles – read the comments, too. All of your arguments have already been addressed several times.

Now, about that one and a half decade of active service…

The main problem I have with the entire war on terror is summed up in your argument: "By establishing Iraq and Afghanistan as free Islamic nations, we will deny al-Qaeda two logistical strongholds from which to base operations, recruit, train, finance, etc.".

What if this is simply wrong? What if - at great expense - we succeed in this goal, and it has no effect on the radical jihadist movement? What then? Invade, occupy and transform every nation with large Muslim populations?

I submit to you that we - the West - are going about this entirely the wrong way, a way that will not lead to victory in this war.

Old Soldier, I'm sure you've read the constitution. Our constitution makes it pretty clear that Congress, and not the President has the authority to wage war. Under our constitution, an executive cannot decide to go to war without the express consent of congress. If the executive branch lies or misrepresents information in its case to Congress for war, this is exactly what the Founders had in mind when they specified "high crimes and misdemenors."

PRsings,

"my second wish is that everyone would realize that God and Allah are two names for the same thing. The differences in religions are NOT philosophical, they are cultural."

Not so, my friend. Allah may be a god, but he is not God. God does not foment hate and demand an advance of his kingdom by the sword. If you don't believe it, you need to do some serious reading on the subject. It is not radical Christians, or Jews, or Hindus, or Buddhists, etc. that are attacking the rest of the world; it's radical Islamists.

"God does not foment hate and demand an advance of his kingdom by the sword."

--- Old Soldier

Old Soldier, have you re-read the Old Testament lately? The Old Testament's God is angry, vindictive and violent. And, He is the same God that Muslims recognize. That's why Islam is called an "Abrahamic" religion.

Now we've split off to argue the differences between allah and god?

How about some similarities?

They are both figments of the imagination and both are used to divide and conquer (see Osama Bin Laden, Pat Robertson, etc).

I'm calling a halt right now to the religious comparisons, which in addition to being ignorant, are off topic.

The next poster bringing it up is outta here.

"If you don't believe it, you need to do some serious reading on the subject. It is not radical Christians, or Jews, or Hindus, or Buddhists, etc. that are attacking the rest of the world; it's radical Islamists."

America attacked Iraq, not the other way around.

Conf Yankee - did you bother to look at Murtha's record? It takes about 10 seconds - check out Murtha's bio on house.gov, and you'll see how ignorant and blatantly wrong your dismissal of Murtha is. Dismissing the expertise of the a 37- year veteran and a ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee is beyond stupid. I am stunned that you could make such a boneheaded statement without spending 10 seconds to look-up Murtha's record, and considering your apparent embrace of ignorance, I'll post his bio for you below...

"Congressman Murtha is so well-respected for his first-hand knowledge of military and defense issues that he has been a trusted adviser to presidents of both parties on military and defense issues and is one of the most effective advocates for the national defense in the country. He is ranking member and former chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, a Vietnam combat veteran and a retired Marine Corps colonel with 37 years of service, a rare combination of experience that enables him to understand defense and military operations from every perspective."

John Yetter may have spent a lot of time in the Army studying weapons and tactics. But it doesn't appear that he spent much time studying people or cultures.

Exit strategy, as it has become known, is part of the operational plans and will be held very close hold so as to deny the enemy usable intelligence. Announcing an exit strategy with a time line is divulging too much information. It is a providing the enemy with usable intelligence by which they may plan their operations.

Yetter seems oblivious to who we are fighting and what their motivations are. He appears completely out of touch with the psychology of the Iraqi populace.

Announcing a plan to leave isn't going to provide "the enemy" with intelligence. What would they do, stop attacking our troops and wait 6 months? That is idiotic. They could do that now. Is there anyone stupid enough to believe that our troops would still be rotating through Iraq 6 months from now, if there were no longer any attacks on them?

There are two reasons that the don't stop now. First, the jihadists don't want the U.S. to leave; they enjoy killing Americans on a much more level playing field they would find anywhere else. The battle is the goal. Staying and fighting an intractible resistance movement is what they want. Staying the course means they win.

Second, many Iraqis have become convinced that the U.S. will never leave, unless forced out. They are convinced that Americans plan to stay forever and plunder their resources. While most Americans realize that Bush has no interest in maintaining a hugely expensive occupation indefinitely, Iraqis don't know that. They see American companies getting sweatheart deals on the oil development. They see permanent military bases being constructed. Why wouldn't many of them think that forcing the U.S. is necessary?

Settling a timetable for withdrawal is going to undermine the support of the Iraqi people for the insurgency. Who is going to want to get themselves killed if the U.S. is going to leave anyway? Yes, the jihadists will. But they will no longer be welcomed and sheltered by the Iraqi people. It will be much easier to root them out.

Instead of using his damn brains, Yetter chooses to engage in a disappointing attack on Dave Johnson's patriotism. People are free to disagree as to what policies to have and what strategies and tactics to employ. Yes, people may have bad ideas. And, yes, bad ideas "help the enemy" in a sense. But it is the height of cheap-shot-ism to question someone's patriotism because they have a different idea for how to succeed.

I thought it was idiotic to invade Iraq with too few troops to secure the weapons caches. I thought it was idiotic to disband the Iraqi army. I was right. Does that mean that George Bush and Don Rumsfeld are guilty of treason because they adopted strategies that ultimately helped the enemy? I think we all know the answer to that one. Remember, patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

America attacked Iraq, not the other way around.

And who was in Iraq? Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Abdul Rahmin Yasin, and Musab Al-Zaqawi, among others, including some guy named Saddam with a track record of using postion gas and attacking his neighbors while paying bounties to terrorist's families in other countries.

Not that any of that should concern us, right?

I mean, only one of those guys tried to trigger a WMD strike on Manhattan before he returned home to Baghdad. Luckily for us, his convential explosives burned too fast and hot and burned away his chemical weapons instead of dispersing them.

Whoever can guess who and provide a supporting link gets a shiny new penny...

Conf Yankee - did you bother to look at Murtha's record?

I certainly did, and you need to decide what in it you want to support. Do you want to support his 15 years of active duty status (the rest were in the Reserves) that ended 38 years ago, or his utterly forgetable three decades as a congressmen since?

Again, he thinks he's hot stuff (remember his office wrote the glowing bio you posted), but all I've seen of him is that he is predisposed to retreat.

"Exit strategy, as it has become known, is part of the operational plans and will be held very close hold so as to deny the enemy usable intelligence. Announcing an exit strategy with a time line is divulging too much information. It is a providing the enemy with usable intelligence by which they may plan their operations."

This is absolutely true, absolutely correct, absolutely standard and sensible thinking when engaged in a war against another government. However, at this point we are not engaged in a war. We are engaged in an occupation. We are not at war with the Iraqi government; to the extent that they now have one, we established it. We are not engaged in a war against ANY government, or against ANY kind of established army. So how does this statement apply to our current situation?

Now, I'm not arguing against the statement itself, which is not only common sense but absolutely necessary in a war against another state capable of attacking us. I don't agree that we should precipitously pull out of Iraq, or, for that matter, that we should "stay the course" either, unless we have some idea what that "course" really is and what our goals in Iraq are. It would hardly give aid and comfort to anyone to tell us that. I don't agree that we should set some kind of deadline for pulling out of Iraq and announce it. But I do agree that us citizens, of whichever political party, need to know that there is some kind of PLAN. Rational goals we need to accomplish, and a logical plan for accomplishing those goals. And we need to be told the truth, not just another pile of propaganda. The sad truth is that I've heard so many reasons for why we went to war in Iraq, and why we should "stay the course" that I have absolutely no idea what we're doing there.

Keep in mind that I am not arguing the merits of Yetter vs. Murtha, but I am arguing that your dismissal of a colonel, multi-war veteran with 2 Purple Hearts, the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, Bronze Star and not to mention his current position as a ranking member of the Def. App Subcom appears to be a self-serving attempt to dismiss someone as impressive as Murtha.

And this all leads to the obvious question - if Murtha is a "non-expert", just who would qualify? In particular, would Donald Rumsfeld? Per the substantial criteria that you seem to demand, is Rumsfeld more of an expert than Murtha (who, by the way, retired as Reserve colonel in 1990) and why?

Forgive me if I seem that I am dismissing Murtha outright. I don't really feel that way, and I apologize if I give that impression. You were right to call me of that.

But Murtha's much vaunted "37 years" is used to try to silence his critics, as if service three decades ago gives Murtha what someone in New York might call "absolute moral authority."

Murtha's military experince was valuable, but it is dated, and his views are often pessimistic, perhaps tainted by his experinces in Vietnam. I do not find any evidence that he understands modern warfighting strategies and tactics. Appropriations is nice and it is very important in deciding what equipment we ill have, but one cold just as easily blame him (if we're going to dig up lefty arguments)and say that he was incompetent for not seeing we'd need more of the latest body armor and up-armored everything for Iraq from the beginning.

Murtha is just a man, a good one, but he is not any sort of authority on this war, and his has long since passed.

I would just like to point out that direct experience with the War in Viet Nam is not at all irrelevant to our conflict today.

-- The enemy engaged in asymmetrical combat.
-- We were there for arguable, confusing, political reasons. The strategic significance was questionable.
-- Our soldiers often couldn't explain the mission or didn't know what the mission was.
-- Our soldiers and their leaders couldn't define what victory would mean.
-- Our soldiers couldn't tell friendlies from hostiles.
-- Our leaders used questionable, cooked intelligence to start the war.
-- We had to destroy villages to save them.
-- Soldiers, under orders, committed atrocities and some lower-level players paid the price.
-- We used some weapons which were questionable under Geneva conventions.
-- There was no threat to the USA and people got tired of wasting lives for politics.

The fact that we as a society have forgotten many of the lessons of Viet Nam has a lot to do with the mess we're in today.

-- The enemy engaged in asymmetrical combat.

Do you know the difference between asymetrical warfare and terrorism? that you would equate the NVA with Iraqi insurgents in an way is patently laughable. The NVA were a legitimate military force blessed with brillaint leadership (Giap) and the financial and military backing of major powers (Russia, China). You honestly would compare them to tribalists and terrorists?

-- We were there for arguable, confusing, political reasons. The strategic significance was questionable.

whitehouse.gov has your answers. If you are confused, it is through willful ingnorance, and Bush laid out his case for war over many speeches.

-- Our soldiers often couldn't explain the mission or didn't know what the mission was.

Our soldiers clearly know why they are there, What
their goals are, and why this mission must succeed. they alsoare intensely interested in completingtheri mission, as both the Army and Marines have exceed 100% of their reenlistment goals, with combat units having thehighest enlistment rates.

-- Our soldiers and their leaders couldn't define what victory would mean.

Bullshit. they've done so many times. You, as usual, refuse to listen or accept their answers.

-- Our soldiers couldn't tell friendlies from hostiles.

Wrong. The insurgents are killing far more civilians than we are.

-- Our leaders used questionable, cooked intelligence to start the war.

Your contention, unsupported by facts.

-- We had to destroy villages to save them.

Fallujah was the only one that even came close.

-- Soldiers, under orders, committed atrocities and some lower-level players paid the price.

This is patently false, as court records have indicated. You also leave out the fact that the military launched every single one of these criminal investigations on its own, well befor the press or public was even aware of them.

-- We used some weapons which were questionable under Geneva conventions.

False. We have not used a single weapon banned by teh Geneva Conventions, nor any other treaty or convention we have signed.

-- There was no threat to the USA and people got tired of wasting lives for politics.

Tell that to those killed in the World Trade center in 1993. Abdul Rahman Yasin was an Iraqi/American terrosist base dout of Baghdad when he built the World Trade Center bomb in 1993. It was a chemical weapon, a WMD, but the conventional explosives in the blast were too hot and burned to fast, destroying the cehimcl instea dof spreadig them. Yasin flew back form New York to Baghad, where he remained teh guest of Sddam husseign, along with terrosit masterminds Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal.

But don't let facts get in your way, bill.

You haven't so far.

Those responsible for the '93 attack have been caught, prosecuted and thrown in prison.

The rest of your responses range from clueless to denial. If you knew thing one about Nam, you'd know I wasn't referring to NVA. I was referring to Viet Cong.

And, yes, Bush laid out his rational over many speeches. His rational, as rational Americans with memories will attest, changed many times. If he had come to the American people and said that he wanted to spend thousands of lives and hundreds of billions to try to make Iraq a democracy, we wouldn't have gone to war. But you, I and most Americans know what he said: he said Iraq was a direct threat to the U.S. He said Iraq had something to do with 9-11. We now know that he got a PDB on 9-21-01 that said, in no uncertain terms, that Saddam was not involved with 9-11 and that he had no relationship with al Queda.

Who are you trying to kid?

For perspective on soldiers and whether or not they know the mission, know what victory is, know the enemy from friends, I have partly relied on Operation Truth and some of the interviews I have read and heard with those people. I appreciate your forum here and wanted you to know I wasn't just making this stuff up.

I would think that by now, people on the left and the right could agree that Iraq did not pose an imminent threat to us. Don't we know that now? And, I would think that most of us could agree that the degree of sectarian hate and violence in that part of the world makes a Jeffersonian-style representative democracy unrealistic -- come on now, we can easily see that at this point the best we can hope for is some kind of religious government coalition. Iran is very pleased with how things are turning out -- that should tell us something.

"BAGHDAD (AFP) - A top US military spokesman called for parts of Iraq's raging insurgency to be brought into the political process, while insisting that Al-Qaeda was being hit hard by ongoing offensives. "

Our military is saying that some insurgents should be brought into the political process. Again, how can our soldiers tell the difference between a hostile and a friendly? Will our troops recognize some in the Iraqi government as insurgents who have killed Americans? Doesn't this support part of my argument above?

"Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state." -- Confederate Yankee

"As mankind becomes more liberal they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protection of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations in examples of justice and liberality."

-- George Washington, 1790

Does anyone find it ironic that Yetter would cite a Stalinist communist commander's words to support his thesis that dissent and protest can be treason? Of course a general representing a dictatorial communist regime believes dissent and protest make a society weak. So what? A more relevant question for Americans would be what did our Founding Fathers have to say about protest and dissent? We don't take our marching orders from Stalinists, do we?

Cicero: "And maybe you have no problem with my (or others) lack of military service, but 99% of the anti-war left brays that, if you are going to support the war, unless you also serve and fight in that war your opinions have 0 validity."

Doesn't Yetter begin his piece by noting that Dave doesn't list military service? If a background in military service is important to this conservative, why is it not kosher to point out no military service of supporters of the war?

Yetter: "First of all, a reasonable President and his DOD Secretary will rely upon the military experts, the general officers and their staff, to plan and execute war."

You don't need to look to closely to understand that the Bush administration fired the experts with which it didn't agree.

Yetter: "One man’s dissent can very well be another man’s treason. With that you should not disagree."

I completely disagree. This is the United States of America. Dissent is not treason. It is protected by our constitution. We don't follow the leader here. We follow the law.

Yetter: "By establishing Iraq and Afghanistan as free Islamic nations, we will deny al-Qaeda two logistical strongholds from which to base operations, recruit, train, finance, etc."

Oh, is THAT what we're doing. Establishing a "free Islamic nation." Does anyone really believe that if the administration said beforehand that his was the mission, congress would have authorized war? Furthermore, what we have done is added another logistical stronghold -- Iraq was NOT a base for radical Islamasists before this began.

Yetter: "If radical Islam can cause us to withdraw prematurely from Iraq and Afghanistan they will in essence render us globally ineffectual against their onslaught."

We already did that. Reagan sent Marines into Beruit as a "show of force" in 1983. A suicide bomber killed 243 of them. The Reagan administration pulled the Marines out. This, as any real expert on terrorism knows, was the beginning. It demonstrated that you cannot deal with terrorism with military force. It must be dealt with by a combination of law enforcement and military force.

Those responsible for the '93 attack have been caught, prosecuted and thrown in prison.

Not all of them. As I've previously stated, bombbuilder Yasin is still on the run, though he was still residing as a guest of Saddam at the time we invaded.

The rest of your responses range from clueless to denial. If you knew thing one about Nam, you'd know I wasn't referring to NVA. I was referring to Viet Cong.

The Viet Cong, if you knew your history, were virtually destroyed during the Tet Offensive, like smashing an egg against a wall. Afthen then, they were a mere annoyance. The only credible military threat the United States military faced over the long term was the North Vietnamese Army.

You are beginning to tire me, bill. You present hyperbole as fact, and discount fact when it doesn't fit you ideological narrative.

Saddam has a relationship with al Qaeda, a rather rocky one, that no thinking person will deny. Senior Iraqi and al Qaeda officials have met no less than eight times since the early 1990s [source].
That does not mean that Iraq had a hand in 9/11. Bush never claimed they did. As usual, you seem to have problems connecting reality with your reality-based community.

You don't need to look to closely to understand that the Bush administration fired the experts with which it didn't agree.

You are talking about Shinseki, and that has been proven time and again to be a lie.

Via CNN:

[Senior Pentagon Correspondent Jamie] MCINTYRE: Now, Secretary Rumsfeld is fond of saying that everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own set of facts. And the fact that the Army chief of staff was not fired or forced to retire early is just that, Judy. It is a fact.

Wow, bill. You're wrong. Again.

Yetter: "One man’s dissent can very well be another man’s treason. With that you should not disagree."

I completely disagree. This is the United States of America. Dissent is not treason. It is protected by our constitution. We don't follow the leader here. We follow the law.

Yetter did not equate all dissent is treason, he said dissent could be treason. Why are you feeling sensitive to this, bill?

Wow, Space, had we known of your skill and expertise in the psychology of the Iraqi populace, we should have involved you long ago.

”Yetter seems oblivious to who we are fighting and what their motivations are.”

The enemy we are fighting are radical Islamic terrorists – you know the guys that blow up our soldiers, Muslim Iraqi children, Muslim Iraqi police, Muslim Iraqi government officials, Muslim wedding parties in Jordan, school children in Beslan, they fly airplanes into our tall buildings, they try to smuggle nuclear material into the US of A to explode a dirty bomb for maximum enjoyment. Yeah, the same guys that have dubbed us the Great Satan; the Crusaders. You know the guy’s whose idea of sharia law is significantly more radical than the Qur’an and Hadith; something to the right of the Taliban. Their goal is simple – world conversion to Islam or Dhimmitude or death. To think their goal is anything less is, to use your word, idiotic.

”What would they do, stop attacking our troops and wait 6 months?”

I don’t know about the 6 month part, but, yes – just like North Vietnam. They would most likely keep up some pressure (attacks) to remind folks of their presence and to retain their logistical lines and command structure, but they would not attempt decisive engagements that could cost them dearly. Gen Giap was convinced that his intricately detailed plans for the Tet ’68 offensive would be decisive against the Americans. Giap’s commanders reported resounding failure on all fronts. However, Walter Cronkite reported that the Tet offensive was a success, that the VC had captured the US Embassy in Saigon (which was false). Giap could not believe his luck. The American press was turning against the war effort. All he had to do was keep his logistic lines exercised and his command structure in place, keep up some pressure and wait out public opinion. The rest is history that bin Laden, al-Zawahiri and al-Zarqawi have studied. Do you think them idiots, too?

”Instead of using his damn brains, Yetter chooses to engage in a disappointing attack on Dave Johnson's patriotism.”

I believe my words were, “If the consequence of your dissension provides comfort to an enemy with whom we are at war, then you must take responsibility for a treasonous act.” Have you heard of the third person plural? I was not directing that specifically at Dave Johnson. But it apparently hit a nerve in you. If Dave Johnson took it that way, I offer an my apology right now.

”I thought it was idiotic to disband the Iraqi army. I was right.”>/i>

Now that is one of the most outrageous statements I’ve seen in all the screeds posted on this subject. You mean we should have left Saddams mujahidin and Republican Guards armed and ready to attack us at will? Do you mean leave the opposing army in place like we did in Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan? You have absolutely no concept of warfare and defeating an enemy army and what you when you’ve won. Space, I’m sorry, but that is just plain S T U P I D.

"As mankind becomes more liberal they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protection of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations in examples of justice and liberality." -- George Washington, 1790

George Washington was one of the most devout Christian men of his time. His “liberal” was not inclined toward socialism. Your association of word usage is not logical – but that is for another discussion.

”Does anyone find it ironic that Yetter would cite a Stalinist communist commander's words to support his thesis that dissent and protest can be treason?”

Stand up, Bill, so this hits you in the forehead rather than fly over your head. The point was in the quote – the fact that our enemy in North Vietnam understood and realized they won because, ”Through dissent and protest [America} lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.” The point is that we lost the war because we lost our national will (or heart) to fight to victory. And as a Vietnam vet, that really torques me. It means the people stopped supporting me as a soldier at war. There is no other plausible explanation.

It means, Bill, that we, a conventional force, had militarily defeated an asymmetrical enemy – one that blended in with the population, one that we could not discern from the good guys. We did that with soldiers who didn’t know what their mission was and leaders who couldn’t define victory. We used the weapons and tactics we had available in the 60’s and 70’s and no, they come nowhere close to the precision of today. Different times – different weapons.

Bill, get over Shinseki. Shinseki retired, was not fired. He was the Army Chief of Staff, and as such commanded no troops and directed no operations. General Tommy Franks was Bush’s expert that commanded the assault on Baghdad. I don’t recall Franks being fired.

Bill, right wrong or indifferent; dissent that gives aid and comfort to an enemy is treason under the constitution. Article III, Section 3. Under the Bill of Rights, you are guaranteed free speech as a means to redress grievances with the government. It does not say speech free of consequences and responsibility. And that is where liberals trip up; it’s that responsibility and consequence thingy that gets ya.

”Iraq was NOT a base for radical Islamasists before this began.”

Oh contraire, Bill, Iraq contained several terrorist training sites and many munitions storage areas. Do you remember the commercial passenger airplane in the middle of the desert? That was analyzed and considred to be a terrorist training site. I read some fool’s account of how that plane was Saddam’s anti-terrorist training site in case one of their airplanes was hijacked. What was the name of Saddam’s national airline? There were other training sites discovered by coalition forces as they advanced and took ground. Too, the bipartisan report to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence established an unequivocal link between Saddam’s government and al-Qaeda.

Reagan did not send Marines to Beirut as a conquering force. The terrorist attacks started long before 1983. Between 1968 and 2004 there were over 150 attacks directly attributed to radical Islamic Terrorists. Source: http://www.honestreporting.com/obsession/timeline.htm

Nice try Bill. You were persistent, anyway.

Conf Yank ("CY" from this point forward due to pure laziness on my part):

Couple of things. First, Bill - please try to keep this space as a discussion forum - 6 sucessive comments, despite their quality (?), will likely lead to the message of your posts getting lost as its easy to focus on the few apparent holes in your arguments.

Second - CY - I commend you for acknowledging that things can be misconstrued from your statement that "I'd also have to argue that Murtha is anything but an expert when it come(s)to the military". Obviously, that statement was wrong. It takes someone with integrity and honesty to admit - on his own blog - that perhaps something may have not been stated correctly. Well done.

That said (you knew this was coming), we have very different ideas of how this war can and should be done. Many - such as Murtha, myself, the majority of the American people and the entire rest of the planet - happen to believe that this war is no longer a battle of weapons, but rather a battle of ideas.

Thus, the concept that establishing democracy in the Middle East is the central component to defeat terrorism. While the preceding sentence is the belief of many on the right, the left believe that this is a war of ideas that cannot be resolved by bullets, WP and torture. It is an interesting debate.

And personally, I think that is the question we need to answer: how do we win? What are the mileposts for us to call it a victory and go home? Is it a lack of an attack on our soil? I am one of those New Yorkers who happened to have survived 9-11 and was forced to work from as my building was destroyed and used that time to attend the funerals of those who I lost, but does this give me any sense of "expertise"? No. But I do deserve to know what our leaders - and their few remaining supporters - think is a concrete victory. And its not just me. Yetter, you, and everyone else needs to know what is the victory here. "Staying the course" answers nothing. What is our victory? Per the reasoning for the Iraq war, my understanding was that it was a preemptive war to prevent Saddam from attacking us. I think we all know that the concept of him attacking us is about as relevant as me growing 6 inches tonight. It is irrational.

Please help to explain our position. And while we're at it, you failed to explain how Rumsfeld has more qualifications than Murtha...

That said (you knew this was coming), we have very different ideas of how this war can and should be done. Many - such as Murtha, myself, the majority of the American people and the entire rest of the planet - happen to believe that this war is no longer a battle of weapons, but rather a battle of ideas.

All wars are "battles of ideas." But ideas unsupported by military force, no matter how superior, do not win wars when the othr side is convinced that their way of thinking is superior.

If your idea is truly superior, it will win over the majority of the population, but it will not win over everyone. That is exactly the situation we face in Iraq. The majority of the Kurds and Shia support the drive for democracy in Iraq, as do many of the Sunni (as a side note, I highly recommend reading Michael Yon's first-hand accounts of the war in Iraq. You will note some of our very best allies, and the staunchest supporters of demcracy are Sunni, as are the brothers that proudly run the world famous and pro-democracy Iraqi blog, Iraq the Model).

But not evryone will be swayed by ideological battles. Some are so firmly entrenched that no amount of pleading or logic will convert them. they will never believe Iraqi Democracy is worth fighting for. But enough about the Democratic Party. :-)

Those holdouts that will violently resist change have to be rooted out and destroyed, or disarmed. We will not be the people to do that, ultimately, even thogh we are, according to al Zarqawi's own writing, doing one hell of a job of it all the same. We are there in varying strengths for another year or so to disstabillize the insurgency, stablize the government, and provide training and experience to the police officers and soldiers who will enforce the peace after we are gone. You want to leave before the job is done. We don't.

And personally, I think that is the question we need to answer: how do we win? What are the mileposts for us to call it a victory and go home?

How many times should we continue to answer this question? We have provided this answer hundreds of times: when the Iraqi security forces are ready to standup, we'll stand down.

Like a petulent child, the lefit simply isn't happy with the simple (and obvious) answer and wants to keep pestering s like an annoying child asking, "Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?" No we aren't but unlike you, we know where we are going.

As Iraqi military and police forces come online and are able to stabilize the counry, we're slowly easing out as to not create a power vacuum.

In Iraq, we won one of the fastest ground wars in history, and it looks like we'll complete the reconstruction ahead of the pace of both Germany and Japan (and indeed, the American south after our Civil War) as well.

We're doing great, as our soldiers on the ground and the Iraq people in general agree. the only people who think we are in a quagmire, or are loosing in Iraq, are people who are not there.

I think we all know that the concept of him attacking us is about as relevant as me growing 6 inches tonight. It is irrational.

No, denying reality is irrational. Saddam Hussien used WMDs--real WMDS--13 times in his depraved reign, often against civilains. Iraq's governments supported terrorists in foreign countries, and had major terrorists (Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas) living as his guests. The sole remaining fugitive from the 1993 World Trade Center WMD attack (the 1993 WTC attack was in part a failed chemical weapon attack with sodium cyanide, but Yasin miscalculated his mix of Urea-nitrate and burned up his chemicals instead of spreading them) is Abdul Rahmin Yasin, who lived as a guest of Saddam in Baghdad.

Fatah (also knows as the ANO), the Mujahedeen-e-Kalq, and Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), and Hamas were all terro groups supported by Saddam, while Ansar al-Islam, affilated with al Qaeda, was established in northern Iraq by Musab al-Zarqawi in late 2001. These were all operating in Iraq prior to the first bullet being fired.

The United Nations also agrees that regardless of whther or not Saddam had WMDs at the time of the invasion, he was expected to reconstite his WMD programs once Oil-for-Food sanctions collapsed.

In other words, doing nothing, as Democrats apparently favor with their "time machine" approach, was the only irrational choice.

And while we're at it, you failed to explain how Rumsfeld has more qualifications than Murtha...

Oh gee, let me see... Rumsfeld is the Secretary of Defense intimately involved in strategic planning and force restructuring as his bread and butter, day to day job, while Murtha hasn't been involved in making strategic or tactical military decisions since before I was born (1967, if he was even involved in that kind of planning then, which I doubt as a combat officer), and all he currenty does is decide which stuff to buy.

I think the CEO is just a bit better qualified to run the company than the guy putting out purchase orders, than you very much.

Centrist, if, as you say, ”this war has is no longer about a battle of weapons, but rather a battle of ideas.” then someone forgot to tell al-Qaeda, Hamas, and the rest of the radical Islamic terrorists. They are still engaging us and Jordan and Iraqi children and civilians – and the rest of the world for that matter – with violence in the form of weapons – not ideas! I’m sure our soldiers would rather be on the receiving end of ideas vs. RPGs and IEDs. If by “ideas” you mean we reject the idea of accepting Islamic Dhimmitude, then you are somewhat right. Do you not understand that al-Qaeda wants to kill you and would unhesitatingly do so if they had the opportunity? To me that is quite personal.

”Thus, the concept that establishing democracy in the Middle East is the central component to defeat terrorism. While the preceding sentence is the belief of many on the right, the left believe that this is a war of ideas that cannot be resolved by bullets,…” (I purposely left the last part off; it’s time you got over the debunked garbage.) Establishing a democracy in Iraq IS NOT the central component to defeat terrorism. Did you not read what I wrote? It is but ONE front in the global war against radical Islamic terrorism. The right does not believe that terrorism will end with Iraq becoming a free nation. It will deny them that country as a resource with which to mount offensive operations. That is the goal of warfare – to deny the enemy the ability to mount offensive ops.

”And personally, I think that is the question we need to answer: how do we win? What are the mileposts for us to call it a victory and go home? … Yetter, you, and everyone else needs to know what is the victory here.” To define a detailed plan with “mileposts” makes for a nice sound bite, but is militarily stupid. Don’t you think there is a reason the Steelers don’t lay out a detailed offensive plan (with “mileposts”) of how they intend to play in their next game? Give me a break. You don’t tell your enemy that after six months with no attacks, we go home or whatever the “mileposts” may be. That is usable information for their strategy planning and how they prosecute their operations. The difference between the right – who will accept the plan of "we will stay as long as it takes" – and the left, is the left wants to press for details they know will not be forthcoming, and then play it for political advantage. As a soldier, I don’t buy into that garbage and actually resent the political gamesmenship.

”What is our victory?” We may not recognize the victory when it occurs or at least for some time after it occurs. We’re talking a war with radical terrorists whose goal/objective is for the world to be subjected to a radicalized Islam. Iraq DOES NOT define "the" victory in the war on radical Islamic terrorism. So, how would you define victory? I cannot at this time, but I refuse to give in to their demands.

For some reason the left has become obsessed with instant success. As I said, Iraq is not the defining victory for our war against radical Islamic terrorism. Do not misunderstand me, because I am NOT advocating this, but it may take nuclear arms to force the non-radical base to self-police the radicals from within Islam. Just how much do you value your freedom and way of life? Enough to resist Dhimmitude or conversion to Islam? Would you die to prevent radical Islam from taking over America? Would you die to prevent a radical Islamic terrorist from decapitating your family? I certainly would… in a heartbeat! You are not seeing the forest for the trees.

Via Fox News;

BAGHDAD, Iraq — A homicide car bomber targeting U.S. troops handing out toys to children at a hospital in central Iraq killed 30 people Thursday, including four police guards, three women and two children, officials said.

Cnetrist, is this the "idea" that we are at war with?

It's hard for me to believe anyone in this country can accept a shooting war in which you cannot define victory. The tortured logic of those who seem to think such a war is a necessary use of life and treasure astounds me. I can't imagine trying to explain to a bunch of soldiers that many will die, yes, but we may not know victory when we attain it. Lunacy!

Again, Bill, we told you exactly when we would leave: just as soon as Iraqi forces are ready to take over security for their nation, and tell us so.

That is about a clear a condition as any rational person can expect.

Hey, Bill, how was victory defined for ,oh, say WWI, or WWII or Korea, Vietnam, Somolia, Kosovo? Was "victory" defined while we were in the middle of the war, or did that come later? Victory comes when the enemy can no longer mount offensive operations. As for the troops, they seem well pleased with the mission definition. You're the one that cannot figure things out.

Sometimes people try to make things too complicated. Kinda like salvation; it's very simple, really, you just have to accept it.

My dad was a former Marine who joined up doing WWII and served in the South Pacific. He was proud of his service, happy as hell to have survived Tarawa and proud to be an American. He was as patriotic as any of you soldiers, sailors and marines on this site and yet he realized in 1966 that Vietnam was mistake and actively worked to bring it to an end. Had he lived to experience this current administration, and in a way it's a good thing he didn't, he would have been appalled by the decision to invade Iraq. I know he would have supported the invasion of Afghanistan and he'd be asking every day - "why haven't we caught Osama?" But he would have been against this war. So are you righties out there going to call my dad a coward too, like you do anyone who doesn't agree with you? When are you going to wake up to the fact that sometime politicians lie, or make mistakes, or are corrupted by power - and the price paid for those lies, mistakes and corruption is the lives of young Americans. Why aren't you working to save our country instead of bad-mouthing people who don't agree with you?

SoM,

Politicians indeed lie. Look at your Democratic leadership.

Had your father lived, he would probably would have been disgusted by the "whichever way the wind blows" leadership of the Democratic Party, which has no convictions whatsoever and will send our troops out to die in a heartbeat for a war they now say they never supported. Our President has supported the troops and they overwhelming support him. They have little use for the Democratic Party which would waste the sacrifices they've made.

Our soldiers overwhelmingly vote Republican, and combat veterans reenlist in record-breaking numbers. That should tell you who the soldiers are behind, and it isn't the party of Cut and Run.

Your father would have likely understood that finding Osama is something best done with small, highy mobile groups, and he would have been able to inform your ignorance, not further it.

He would also have likely understood the vast differences between Iraq and Vietnam, which none of you on the left seem to grasp on even the most basic level.

I'd suggest you quit trying to hide behind your dad. Either you can speak for yourself, or you cannot.

Coward.

SoaM, did your father explain why he opposed the Vietnam War? You see, we actually achieved a militarty victory that was given away by the dissent and protests prompting our politicians to give the victory away. Don't take my word for it; read the accounts of General Giap.

Lots of combat veterans oppose war, because they lived the inhumanity of it. I'm a three time combat veteran who opposes the deaths of young American (and allied) heroes. However, just like me before them and those yet to come, we recognize the need for our way of life - our freedom and liberty - to be defended. We are also prone to share freedom and liberty to those who aspire it (like South Korea, South Vietnam and now Iraq). Freedom is not frre - it requires the blood of patriots as payment.

I can't help but believe an old Marine given the facts that are recorded regarding the linkage of Saddam's Iraq to al-Qaeda and knowing Saddam's penchant to aquire more and greater WMDs would have supported our actions in the interest of national security. If the only information used to decide to support (or not) the invasion of Iraq comes from the MSM, one has to conclude we were wrong; after all, that's their mantra. Find a young Soldier, Marine, or Airman that has one ot two tours of duty in Iraq and listen to what they have to say. You'll get an entirely different picture of what is going on and how we are doing.

And, like Bob, I suggest you not frame your arguments around your deceased father. Your father ensured you didn't have to speak Japanese or German. These young heroes of today are trying to ensure you don't have to worship allah.

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
  
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

So, Confederate Yankey and Old Soldier, was Bush wrong when he criticized Clinton while troops were under fire. I didn't see any conservatives complaining that one shouldn't question the Commander in Chief when troops were on the ground and under fire during the Clinton administration. Are you guys consistent in your beliefs or are you hypocrites?

Did we win or lose in Viet Nam? Did we have a winning strategy? Why didn't it go well? Old Soldier would rather listen to a Stalinist, dictatorial Communist spinning the meaning from his point of view than a host of American historians and political players who have already explained our mistakes.

Bill, what was the context of that quote, and what is your source? A detached comment, devoid of meaning or attachment, means almost nothing. I need context to determine if Bush was right or wrong at the time he made this comment, and a source to even verify it is an accurate quote.

Our "exit strategy" is the same for Iraq as it was for Germany and Japan World War II; when the domestic government and security forces are built up to a point where they can stand on their own, we'll depart.

As for General Giap's comments, unlike the American historians and politicians, he was there. You're ignorantly arguing that watching the game from your Lay-Z-Boy gives you more knowledge about how the game was played than that the winning coach.

Confed.Yankee: "Our "exit strategy" is the same for Iraq as it was for Germany and Japan World War II; when the domestic government and security forces are built up to a point where they can stand on their own, we'll depart."

1. Newsflash: our soldiers are still stationed in Germany and Japan. Are you saying it would be acceptable for our troops to be stationed in Iraq for the next 50 years?

2. Please don't play dumb. You know that Bush's remark was in 1999 when he was running for President. He was criticizing Clinton's handling of the war in Bosnia (while American troops were under fire.)

3. You don't have the slightest idea whether or not I was in Viet Nam or in my Lazy Boy. For all you know, I may be a decorated veteran of that conflict or I may be a PhD doing my thesis on that conflict. Or, maybe I know a little more about our General Giap than either you or the Old Soldier. In any event, that last comment is pure conjecture on your part.

If Iraq would like to have a small permanent deployment of U.S troops, I'd have no problem with that, as long as they are not there to enforce domestic policy. We have U.S deployed forces in several Arab countries, so no, that would not be a problem for me.

Actually, I wasn't following politics in 1999, so I don't know where the quote came from. As a matter of fact, since you still haven't provided a source, I still don't know if it is accurate.

I don't pretend to be an expert, but what was our purpose in Bosnia, and do we have an exit strategy yet? Best I can tell, it is some murky humanitarian mission, but I've heard no conditions for victory, adn we've been there quite a while. Apparently, you only concern yourslef with losing wars started by Republicans.

You honestly profess to know more about the Vietnam War than the staff of the general who won it? You are certainly arrogant, but I doubt anyone will take you seriously.

Bill, how would you define an exit strategy for a peace keeping mission? Our forces entered Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina on a UN requested peace keeping mission. We've also been involved in the UFO in the Sinai for about 20 years, why aren't you asking about our "exit strategy" for that mission? There was no rhetoric (on either side of the isle) concerning Slobodan Milosevic being a threat to anyone other than the Serbs and Muslims, certainly not a threat to our national security. (And please don’t start rehashing the “Iraq was not a threat to the US”. Just go here: http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/ and read: “No hype needed: Saddam, al-Qaida linked”. It will help to refresh your memory.) As far as the hypocritical accusation, you didn’t throw out any comments by Bush claiming Clinton was “wrong” to send troops to Kosovo, etc; that his policy made more enemies, etc., etc. Bush has given our exit strategy time and again; you just don’t like the strategy, so you dig for more details that you know won’t be forthcoming. I'm quite sure if Kosovo was a National Security issue, Al Gore would have exploited that during the campaign.

You are hung up on my quoting Bui Tin, aren’t you? It happens to be an indicting perception as to why we withdrew from Vietnam. A stinging realism rendered by an old enemy who understood why they won the war. It is a revelation that folks like yourself cannot to this day accept. The peace-nicks, politicians, and MSM turned a victory into a defeat. What part of that accusation don’t you understand? It’s pretty damned simple and pretty damned clear. Even you should be able to decipher it, especially if you are working on a doctoral thesis. Oh, BTW, if you are working on a Vietnam War doctorial thesis, wouldn’t it be intellectually dishonest to discount what the winning side perceives as the reason for their victory?!

Our forces remained in Germany, in large numbers, because Joseph Stalin was next door and had a very hungry look in his eye for the rest of Germany (remember the Cold War?). We provided a deterrent to Uncle Joe and his successors deciding to roll thru the Fulda Gap. The occupational army in Japan was drawn down quicker, because an invasion of Japan was not as threatening as Germany. Since the first Gulf War, it has been prudent to leave large numbers of units in Germany to more quickly deploy to the Near East. It was also tangible evidence that we were committed to Germany's defense if necessary. If Syria and Iran are perceived to be threats that Iraq cannot handle, we’ll probably leave a deterrent force in Iraq as well. It’s part of providing a commitment to the security of a country that we’ve made vulnerable. BTW, some of the units that deployed to Iraq from Germany are recovering to the USofA, not Germany. It's part of an ongoing drawdown of forces in Germany.

bill, your credentials are immaterial at this point, because it is your comments that are at issue. I trust your antagonistic comments are predicated upon your ideology. Mine certainly are (that and a bunch of life and research). You also have a very political view of the military rather than a militaristic understanding of tactics and strategy.