[Hawkeye]

I have been thinking about this lately. Part of me says if you don't support the commander you dont' support the troops. But another part says Give then a hand for what they do not who sent them to do it.

I'm pretty conflicted about this.....discuss........

 

[Motionboy2]

No, I don't always like my boss, but I still think I am a good person.
Troops are like employees, they don't really want to go to war, they are told to and they go. If you don't support Bush's decision to send them to war then you probably support the troops more because you want to bring them out of harms way.

That is how I look at it

 

[fluff]

It seems pretty simple to me, the troops are doing what the C-in-C tells them to. You can support them for doing a good job even if you think the C-in-C is a fvcking moron and making bad decisions.

A proviso is that I could not support troops commiting atrocities even if they were ordered to do so.

 

[biggins]

i support them because most of them are saying " uhhh why the hell are we here again?" and the rest are saying "uhhhh why the hell are we still here?" thats got to be tough. i do not support bush however . i dont think that the two are linked at all in my opinion. so now you can rest easy.

 

[Ciaran]

Maybe you should try thinking for yourself.

I support the troops. I support bringing them home. And yes, I think that Bush is an idiot.

 

[Hawkeye]

But wouldn't questioning th ereason they are there and not showing faith in their leadership undermine their moral?

 

[Toshi]

But wouldn't questioning th ereason they are there and not showing faith in their leadership undermine their moral?

morale comes from having faith in the soundness of their leadership, not from blind faith in said leadership.

 

[N8 v2.0]

morale comes from having faith in the soundness of their leadership, not from blind faith in said leadership.

Spoken like a real military veteran...

 

[Toshi]

Spoken like a real military veteran...

if you truly believe one has to have served in the military to speak of it (which is asinine, just for the record), then why aren't you voting for kerry? or do bush's antics in the air national guard, including possible dereliction of duty, resonate more strongly with your experience in the front lines of the PR office?

 

[$tinkle]

it certainly does seem like a convenient "out" to say bush = bad, while troops = good, just to get the patriotism points. However, upon closer inspection, it breaks down rather quickly.

what's the rationale for supporting the troops - like theater level cmdrs - whose advice is readily applied to the bush doctrine?

what's the rationale for supporting the troops who are "too stupid to know better", as some of you have implied? You think those who enlisted in the last few years to joined the marines to become lethal weapons didn't know *exactly* how this was going to pan out?

just so some of you may get a recent perspective on the morale of the troops over yonder, here's a piece penned by a major in the marines:

thought from Iraq - "Doom & Gloom about Iraq's future....I don't see it from where I'm sitting."

[For those of you who haven't gotten my "Thoughts" before, I'm a Major in the USMC on the Multi-National Corps staff in Baghdad. The analysts and pundits who don't see what I see on a daily basis, in my opinion, have very little credibility to talk about the situation - especially if they have yet to set foot in Iraq. Everything Americans believe about Iraq is simply perception filtered through one's latent prejudices until you are face-to-face with reality. If you haven't seen, or don't remember, the John Wayne movie, The Green Berets, you should watch it this weekend. Pay special attention to the character of the reporter, Mr. Beckwith (the Journalist in the movie). His characters experience is directly related to the situation here. You'll have a different perspective on Iraq after the movie is over.]

The US media is abuzz today with the news of an intelligence report that is very negative about the prospects for Iraq's future. CNN's website says, "[The] National Intelligence Estimate was sent to the White House in July with a classified warning predicting the best case for Iraq was 'tenuous stability' and the worst case was civil war." That report, along with the car bombings and kidnappings in Baghdad in the past couple days are being portrayed in the media as more proof of absolute chaos and the intransigence of the insurgency.

From where I sit, at the Operational Headquarters in Baghdad, that just isn't the case. Let's lay out some background, first about the "National Intelligence Estimate." The most glaring issue with its relevance is the fact that it was delivered to the White House in July. That means that the information that was used to derive the intelligence was gathered in the Spring - in the immediate aftermath of the April battle for Fallujah, and other events. The report doesn't cover what has happened in July or August, let alone September.

The naysayers will point to the recent battles in Najaf and draw parallels between that and what happened in Fallujah in April. They aren't even close. The bad guys did us a HUGE favor by gathering together in one place and trying to make a stand. It allowed us to focus on them and defeat them. Make no mistake, Al Sadr's troops were thoroughly smashed. The estimated enemy killed in action is huge. Before the battles, the residents of the city were afraid to walk the streets. Al Sadr's enforcers would seize people and bring them to his Islamic court where sentence was passed for religious or other violations. Long before the battles people were looking for their lost loved ones who had been taken to "court" and never seen again. Now Najafians can and do walk their streets in safety. ! Commerce has returned and the city is being rebuilt. Iraqi security forces and US troops are welcomed and smiled upon. That city was liberated again. It was not like Fallujah - the bad guys lost and are in hiding or dead.

You may not have even heard about the city of Samarra. Two weeks ago, that Sunni Triangle city was a "No-go" area for US troops. But guess what? The locals got sick of living in fear from the insurgents and foreign fighters that were there and let them know they weren't welcome. They stopped hosting them in their houses and the mayor of the town brokered a deal with the US commander to r! eturn Iraqi government sovereignty to the city without a fight. The people saw what was on the horizon and decided they didn't want their city looking like Fallujah in April or Najaf in August.

Boom, boom, just like that two major "hot spots" cool down in rapid succession. Does that mean that those towns are completely pacified? No. What it does mean is that we are learning how to do this the right way. The US commander in Samarra saw an opportunity and took it - probably the biggest victory of his military career and nary a shot was fired in anger. Things will still happ! en in those cities, and you can be sure that the bad guys really want to take them back. Those achievements, more than anything else in my opinion, account for the surge in violence in recent days - especially the violence directed at Iraqis by the insurgents. Both in Najaf and Samarra ordinary people stepped out and took sides with the Iraqi government against the insurgents, and the bad guys are hopping mad. They are trying to instill fear once again. The worst thing we could do now is pull back and let that scum back into people's homes and lives.

So, you may hear analysts and prognosticators on CNN, ABC and the like in the next few days talking about how bleak the situation is here in Iraq, but from where I sit, it's looking significantly better now than when I got here. The momentum is moving in our favor, and all Americans need to know that, so please, please, pass this on to those who care and will pass it on to others. It is very demoralizing for us here in uniform to read & hear such negativity in our press. It is fodder for our enemies to use against us and against the vast majority of Iraqis who want their new government to succeed. It causes the American public to start thinking about the acceptability of "cutting our losses" and pulling out, which would be devastating for Iraq for generations to come, and Muslim militants would claim a huge victory, causing us to ! have to continue to fight them elsewhere (remember, in war "Away" games are always preferable to "Home" games). Reports like that also cause Iraqis begin to fear that we will pull out before we finish the job, and thus less willing to openly support their interim government and US/Coalition activities. We are realizing significant progress here - not propaganda progress, but real strides are being made. It's terrible to see our national morale, and support for what we're doing here, jeopardized by sensationalized stories hyped by media giants whose #1 priority is advertising income followed closely by their political agenda; getting the story straight falls much further down on their priority scale, as Dan Rather and CBS News have so aptly demonstrated in the last week.

Thanks for listening. Feedback is always welcome, though I can't promise an immediate response....
<email redacted>

 

[fluff]

it certainly does seem like a convenient "out" to say bush = bad, while troops = good, just to get the patriotism points. However, upon closer inspection, it breaks down rather quickly.

what's the rationale for supporting the troops - like theater level cmdrs - whose advice is readily applied to the bush doctrine?

what's the rationale for supporting the troops who are "too stupid to know better", as some of you have implied? You think those who enlisted in the last few years to joined the marines to become lethal weapons didn't know *exactly* how this was going to pan out?

just so some of you may get a recent perspective on the morale of the troops over yonder, here's a piece penned by a major in the marines:

The question has nothing to do with the morale of the troops, nor their intelligence.

They enlist to serve their country, something of which they should be proud and for which they should be supported.

Should such service take them somewhere where one does not agree they should have been sent, to do something one believed they should not be doing it does not reflect upon them, but upon their commander.

It's not that hard to understand and it does not break down at all. And it is not an out.

Would N8 stop supporting the troops if Kerry got elected and pulled them out of Iraq?

Are you suggested that Vietnam vets should be ashamed of their service?

And it would be possible to find a link to a different kind of story than yours but it would be just as irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Tenchiro]

What's with the PC, feel good "support the troops" statements that everyone feels they need to make? Like if you don't support them you are a bad person or something. If it weren't for the troops there would be no way to wage war, so I say screw the troops.

 

[$tinkle]

They enlist to serve their country, something of which they should be proud and for which they should be supported.

mind your step - you're dangerously close to supporting bush

Should such service take them somewhere where one does not agree they should have been sent, to do something one believed they should not be doing it does not reflect upon them, but upon their commander.

yes, as Lt Kerry hastily reminded us upon return from vietnam

Are you suggested that Vietnam vets should be ashamed of their service?

i won't suggest that which Lt Kerry already testified to in the early 70's

And it would be possible to find a link to a different kind of story than yours but it would be just as irrelevant to the discussion.

coming from the thread derailer herself...

 

[$tinkle]

What's with the PC, feel good "support the troops" statements that everyone feels they need to make? Like if you don't support them you are a bad person or something. If it weren't for the troops there would be no way to wage war, so I say screw the troops.

i appreciate your candor.

if there were more honest voices like this being raised, nadar would have a stronger showing.

 

[fluff]

coming from the thread derailer herself...

From you that's high praise.

 

[Hawkeye]

What's with the PC, feel good "support the troops" statements that everyone feels they need to make? Like if you don't support them you are a bad person or something. If it weren't for the troops there would be no way to wage war, so I say screw the troops.

Gulp, Surely you jest.

 

[Changleen]

mind your step - you're dangerously close to supporting bush

Come on, that's a bit of a non-answer. You can do better than that.

yes, as Lt Kerry hastily reminded us upon return from vietnam

I'd say questioning if Warcrimes had taken place was a valid thing to do. But then again, I agree with you, troops should also have a level of conscience. I would never just obey someone because they were in command. I'd have to respect their reasoning to comply. I guess that's why I should never join the Army...

i won't suggest that which Lt Kerry already testified to in the early 70's

(John Kerry didn't stand up and say 'Vietnam vets should be ashamed of their service' did he?) But anyway, have you flipped your position here? You just said:

what's the rationale for supporting the troops who are "too stupid to know better", as some of you have implied? You think those who enlisted in the last few years to joined the marines to become lethal weapons didn't know *exactly* how this was going to pan out?

You are saying troops are partly responsible for their actions therefore Vietnam vets should be ashamed of some of their actions. Do you now NOT support that Kerry made his post vietnam testimony? Why won't you suggest 'that which Lt. Kerry..'? You just said you supported it, right?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

What's with the PC, feel good "support the troops" statements that everyone feels they need to make? Like if you don't support them you are a bad person or something. If it weren't for the troops there would be no way to wage war, so I say screw the troops.

WORD!!

(unless troops are in a true defensive war, or other honorable cause)

yeah, they know they might go to war and they know they can be sent to war to free their country from invaders like with de gaulle, or to serve as the tool of invasion like with romer.

so its kinda gay to say "i was just doing my job", when you signed for that job knowing you could be used for good or evil.

and probably most who join go thinking they will always be fighting for a noble cause, but if we think about it, you need 2 sides fo fight a war, and only 1 of them can be the aggressor. so at least 50% of soldiers of any war fought have been in the aggressor (wrong) side.

i dont think there is nothing honorable in overriding your own morals, or killing innocents, or staying in the aggressor side because "i was told and its my job to obbey".