Conffederate
Confederate

November 06, 2006

Soldiers Say Democrat War Plans "An Extreme Betrayal"

In an article published in today's Washington Post, dozens of soldiers interviewed by Post reporter Josh White revealed that the precipitous withdrawal favored by many top Democratic leaders would have "disastrous consequences" for the nation of Iraq, potentially plunging the nation into a widespread civil war:

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.

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.

As I stated previously, a civil war is one possible outcome of the calamitous withdrawal apparently favored by Charles Rangel, Lynn Woolsey and other Democrats that favor forcing the military to retreat by de-funding the war, while other approaches favor by Democrats such as John Murtha's plan to "redeploy" the soldiers to Pacific island bases thousands of miles away would lead to the same bloody disaster, and possible genocide.

Blackfive has been collecting from soldiers stationed in Iraq--the ones that John Kerry still thinks aren't intelligent according to his own web site--and their opinions, while varied, support the war effort even though it is their lives on the line.

A sample from a Marine Sergeant on his second tour in Iraq:

People in the US who want to support the troops, who believe we are engaged in a war, and who recognize the long term consequences of failure need to look past all other issues and vote Republican. Democrats have no policy and can not be trusted. But, even worse, they display no apparent understanding of the dangers to our western civilization presented by the enemy. Their actions since 2001 indicate they are willing to sacrifice the safety and integrity of the USA in the future for short term political gains today.

It is painfully clear that those soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines that put their lives on the line every day in Iraq overwhelmingly support staying in Iraq to finish the mission. This is borne out from the dozens of interviews collected by White in his Post article, by the more than 100 emails Blackfive has received from those serving in Iraq right now, and in conversation I've personally had with airmen and soldiers I've recently met who've just returned stateside from multiple tours in Iraq.

As Staff Sergeant Jason Oliver said from Baghdad in one of the interviews that I published this morning:

If your child takes their first steps while holding on to your hands are you just going to let go and hope they continue on their own? No. Most people would continue to support and encourage them until they can continue on their own without support. I feel the same applies here. The Iraqi government is very young and still needs assistance from outside sources so they can develop and grow. The US government has pledged to help build Iraq into a model for the region, and if we were to pull out to early, the Iraqi Government will stumble from its already young state and possibly fall, which would put US forces back into a situation that could possible be worse. We need to stay, maintain and support the Iraqi Government until it can handle all aspects without US assistance.

Tomorrow, we will go to vote all across this great nation and elect Congressmen and Senators to lead our nation. It is your right and your privilege to go cast your ballot without any expectations of violence because generations of brave soldiers like these have put on uniforms and picked up rifles to defend freedom for us and others around the world.

I ask you to consider what these brave men and women in our military are willing to sacrifice for the men, women, and children of Iraq, and what both this nation and 26 million Iraqis stand to lose if Democrats take control of Congress.

Essayist and blogger Bill Whittle wrote a brilliant essay called Tribes last year, exploring the characteristics of people from two similar but distinct perspectives.

One perspective is one he borrowed from a theory and seminar by Lt. Colonel Dave Grossman called The Bulletproof Mind. Grossman divides people into three categories: sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs, and explains those categories thusly.

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident."

This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.

Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million total Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf." Or, as a sign in one California law enforcement agency put it, "We intimidate those who intimidate others."

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen: a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath--a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? Then you are a sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

To this categorization, Whittle adds his own, regarding the pink and the grey:

let’s get past Republican and Democrat, Red and Blue, too. Let’s talk about these two Tribes: Pink, the color of bunny ears, and Grey, the color of a mechanical pencil lead.

I live in both worlds. In entertainment, everything is Pink, the color of Angelyne’s Stingray – it’s exciting and dynamic and glamorous. I’m also a pilot, and I know honest-to-God rocket scientists, and combat flight crews and Special Ops guys -- stone-cold Grey, all of them -- and am proud and deeply honored to call them my friends.

The Pink Tribe is all about feeling good: feeling good about yourself! Sexually, emotionally, artistically – nothing is off limits, nothing is forbidden, convention is fossilized insanity and everybody gets to do their own thing without regard to consequences, reality, or natural law. We all have our own reality – one small personal reality is called "science, " say – and we Make Our Own Luck and we Visualize Good Things and There Are No Coincidences and Everything Happens for a Reason and You Can Be Whatever You Want to Be and we all have Special Psychic Powers and if something Bad should happen it’s because Someone Bad Made It Happen. A Spell, perhaps.

The Pink Tribe motto, in fact, is the ultimate Zen Koan, the sound of one hand clapping: EVERYBODY IS SPECIAL.

Then, in the other corner, there is the Grey Tribe – the grey of reinforced concrete. This is a Tribe where emotion is repressed because Emotion Clouds Judgment. This is the world of Quadratic Equations and Stress Risers and Loads Torsional, Compressive and Tensile, a place where Reality Can Ruin Your Best Day, the place where Murphy mercilessly picks off the Weak and the Incompetent, where the Speed Limit is 186,282.36 miles per second, where every bridge has a Failure Load and levees come in 50 year, 100 year and 1000 Year Flood Flavors.

The Grey Tribe motto is, near as I can tell, THINGS BREAK SOMETIMES AND PLEASE DON’T LET IT BE MY BRIDGE.

Now, let’s do a little free associating, just to take the model for a test spin:

I’m going to throw out some names, and you tell me whether you think they are Pink or Grey? Okay? Ready?

Donald Rumsfield.
Al Sharpton.
Bill Clinton.
Ted Kennedy.
George W. Bush.
Condoleeza Rice.

Okay, my score is Grey, Pink, Pink, Pink, Grey and Grey. Easy, right? Dems = Pink, Repubs = Grey. Now how about these?

John Kennedy
Abraham Lincoln
Ronald Reagan
Franklin Roosevelt

These are more interesting, because there is something very Pink, something warm and emotional and comforting about them. Put all four of them at a dinner table (which I would trade the rest of my life to serve ice water for) and I think you would see four warm, gentle, bright and genuinely funny men.

Now, think:

Cuban Missile Crisis
Fredericksburg
Reykjavik
Pearl Harbor

I get solid Grey scores here. What about you? I get tough, hard-nosed, capable, competent, confident men facing evil straight in the eye and not backing down. (And anyone who even thinks about selling short Reykjavik as a symbol for those eight years of steadfast resolution should see my gun warning, above).

Also, I see two Democrats and two Republicans. Opposing parties. Same Tribe.

Now, when things are going swimmingly, when the End of History has arrived, as it did in the 90’s, having a Pink president (careful!) is no big deal. In fact, it’s a downright advantage. He can be a goodwill ambassador, and charm the pants (you heard me!) off of foreign dignitaries and have everyone cooing and gushing about how swell Americans are once the fascists are out of power.

Now, unfortunately for Pink Power, there remain in the world a few people not impressed by this attitude.

Not long ago, National Geographic ran a really first-rate, 4-hour documentary called INSIDE 9/11, as perfect an example as you could possibly want of the power of a real documentary to enlighten and inform without taking sides.

Watching it was horrible, especially for people like me, because we feel like if we had only known what was going on we could have done something about it.

By the time you've read through these you've probably recognized yourself as a sheep, wolf, or sheepdog, and also as either being pink or grey. You'll also be able to sort out which camps your fellow Americans fall into, and where our current leaders and would be leaders presently stand (the parties, at this moment in history are in stark contrast on which is pink and which is grey), and which paths they would lead us down.

You'll also recognize that we have a choice tomorrow between those that would also "do something," and those who would not only do nothing, but undo all that has been done.

Along with the vast majority of our soldiers, I say we continue the fight.

Surrendering only pleases the wolves.


Update

Powerful words from The Anchoress:

There is a vision in place. It’s difficult, and it is fraught with peril, pain, loss, doubt and heart-clutching fear. But it is the stark and single vision which can shift the Shari’a momentum. The vision is simply this: Help people find their liberty. I you can help them find that - and help them to learn to manage the messy business of freedom - they can begin to chart their own courses. Once they are free, they can enter the marketplace of ideas and industry and find means of movement that have nothing to do with a sword or martyrdom, and everything to do with creativity and human potential and hope.

That is a bold vision. It is a vision rooted in faith, both of the supernatural and natural sort. Faith in God. Faith in mankind.

And for some, particularly those who have long-since forgotten how to dream, who look at the world with grounded, earthbound eyes, it is a vision that seems utterly mad and impossible and futile.

How sad for those who can no longer dream - who can no longer look at America and imagine the greatness within, and how that greatness might be shared - how the visions of the founders might be spread. How sad it is to realize that some of the people currently in leadership positions in this nation would look at General Washington and Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, and they would say…”this was a bad idea…it’s getting difficult. We should just quit.”

What would Bobby Kennedy say about these folks? At his funeral, his weakest brother, Ted, quoted George Bernard Shaw in words meant for the slain senator: “Some men see things as they are and say ‘Why?’ I dream things that never were and say, ‘Why not?’”

Bobby Kennedy would have understood the vision of George W. Bush. He might not have agreed with it 100%, but he would have understood the greatness and practicality of it, at its core. He would have supported the vision, if not always the method. Bobby Kennedy understood dreams. He understood that sometimes the warrior must have his day, or all the poems will be lost.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at November 6, 2006 12:54 PM | TrackBack
Comments

Whereas if we 'stay the course' -- or has it never been about stay the course? -- everything will be peaches and cream. What do you see as victory exactly? The Shiite majority wants a theocratic state. That would be cool if they snuggle up to Iran. Either way we're screwed, may as well stop watching our youth come home dead and maimed. My favorite is when you all say that we'll have victory when the Iraqis stand up and set up a stable government. What you are missing is that the three factions hate eachother more than they love the nation of Iraq. They're torturing eachother with power drills and you all wait patiently until they decide to trust eachother in a democracy.

Pat Tillman read Noam Chomsky and thought the Iraq invasion was unlawful.

The CIA just reported that Afghanistan, where we should be right now, is on the point of collapse.

Iraq had nothing to do with 911, it was Bin Laden with money from the Saudis. 11 hijackers were Saudis, remember? We needed revenge for 911, Iraq is a useless sideline.

The millitary mags all condemned Rumsfeld and our execution of the war in tandem. You can say it's because Gannet is a bunch of communists, but in your hearts you know this is bull, those magazines are the mouthpieces of the military. Everybody except you all knows that Rumsfeld is incompetent. Schwarzkopf commended Joe Galloway recently as the best military reporter, and Galloway rips the Iraq war savagely. You guys have nothing left but your stubborn pride. W thought he was done in 2003, how much more incomptent can you get? Yet you think sacrificing 3,000 lives, countless disfigurements, and 400 billion dollars is a worthwhile excersize in liberal craptrap nation building. There never was and never will be a democracy at the barrel of a gun.

Set aside the bong, fellas. The dream's over.

Posted by: Earl at November 6, 2006 01:43 PM

WASHINGTON – It makes for powerful imagery – an editorial appearing in the Army Times, the Navy Times, the Marine Times and the Air Force Times calling for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Many assume these publications are official or semi-official periodicals of the military branches, while they are actually under the same ownership as USA Today and under the management of an editor who has had his share of run-ins with the U.S. military in the past.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said the president has shrugged off an editorial by the Military Times Media Group to fire Rumsfeld. Bush feels it is merely "grandstanding," he added. The editorial says Rumsfeld has "lost credibility" with top officers.

Snow called the editorial "a caricature" and a "shabby piece of work" filled with inaccuracies. He said it implied the administration's made nothing but "rosy" predictions about Iraq. Snow said that isn't true, leading the president to "shrug it off."

Shortly after Gannett bought the papers in 1997, the media giant installed as editor Robert Hodierne. He is best known for teaming up in 1969 with then-Associated Press reporter Peter Arnett in Vietnam to bring attention to a small group of American soldiers who refused to fight.

As he tells the story himself: "During that late August battle, A.P. reporter Peter Arnett and photographer Horst Faas filed a story about five G.I.s who, for a brief time, refused to fight. A few days later I arrived at the battle to write stories and shoot photos for Pacific Stars & Stripes.

"The story and photos that follow enraged the top brass in the Army. Its chief spokesman, Col. James Campbell, calling Stripes 'the Hanoi Herald,' said my writing gave aid and comfort to the enemy, adding, 'such stories do not border on treason, they are treason.'"

The editorials were timed to come out in all four publications simultaneously today – the final Sunday before the midterm congressional elections.

Posted by: Mark at November 6, 2006 04:41 PM

That's a powerful rebuttal, Mark. Those communists at Gannet with their renegade military journals just can't stand it that we are surgin to victory in Iraq under the deft leadership of Donald Rumsfeld.

A new day is dawning Mark.

Posted by: Earl at November 6, 2006 06:58 PM

Color me confused.

How did nostalgia for the greatest act of mass treason in American history transmogrify itself into apologies for the Shi'ite fundamentalists of Iran?

We have a great deal of searching to accomplish.

Posted by: Robert L. Bell at November 6, 2006 08:46 PM

The military mags??? Are you kidding me? Which ones are you talking about, Army Times, Air Force Times and so on? Please tell me you aren't talking about them! They are as blatantly biased as the MSM! It's a huge joke among military folks (of which I am one) how biased for the left they are! We get hand-me-down issues and pass them around to make fun of them...

It is grandstanding. Those mags have severe BDS issues...pun intended!

Posted by: Stephanie at November 6, 2006 10:13 PM

Stephanie

If you notice Earls comments are always backed up by the MSM,,,That's why he never has a clue to whats really going on.

Posted by: Mark at November 7, 2006 08:56 AM

The MSM is a cabal of some of the largest coroporations in the world who want to throw of the yoke of capitalism. They are riddled with communists, socialists, Trotskyists and other vile pigstickers.

Jig's up, fellas.

Posted by: Earl at November 7, 2006 07:04 PM