The Democrats, apparently stung by the failure of public opinion to fall in line behind Murtha et. al.’s call for withdrawal from Iraq, have yet to coalesce around a new, alternative policy, but they seem to have all agreed on a new word: “redeployment” instead of “withdrawal.”
The mainstream press, as usual, serves as the Democrats megaphone, as in this passage from a Robin Wright article in today’s Washington Post:
… congressional Democrats called on the White House to use the election to accelerate the transition and create the conditions for the redeployment of U.S. forces out of Iraq.
The Democrats, you see, do not favor withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. They simply favor redeploying all the troops out of there to somewhere else.
Yes, John. You don’t “redeploy” troops “out of” anywhere, only from one place to another.
So, given a choice between staying in harm’s way needlessly, and redeploying to a more strategically advantageous position, you both would have our troops remain in harm’s way.
And conservatives claim that we liberals don’t care about our troops?
–Cobra
Cobra-
The problem with your logic is the word needlessly. Re-evaluate your use of it given a close examination of reality, and not the lefty-alt-o-verse that so many misguided souls such as you base decisions on, and get back to me.
Cobra,
Oh, Lord. Read carefully. What John objected to, and I did, was camouflaging “withdrawal” under the name “redeployment.” By all means, advocate withdrawal. I don’t, but I’m not in a position to judge, let alone decide. But don’t call it “redeployment” if what you mean is “withdrawal.” To repeat: you don’t “redeploy out of” someplace; you “redeploy” from someplace to another place. If you “redeploy out of,” you are withdrawing. That has to be one of the more craven euphemisms in journalistic histury.
Michelle,
Then you haven’t paid any attention to what Murtha is saying.
>>>”To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
To create a quick reaction force in the region.
To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq”
Murtha
For all the yahoo right winged, bluster I hear from conservatives about how WELL this war is going, the fact remains that Iraq is NOT secure. Not by a long shot. The most deadliest weapon in the Insurgent arsenal is the roadside bomb or IED, which accounts for the majority of casualties our soldiers face, and not just front line soldiers, but reservists and support groups as well. By “redeploying” troops, the effectiveness of this weapon would be blunted, and American lives would be saved, while keeping mission capability available.
This makes more sense than the knee-jerk conservative response of “retreat and defeat” when the fact of the matter is, our OWN GENERALS ARE CALLING FOR WITHDRAWALS.
I don’t want to see another American soldier die in Iraq. Keeping them in country, and rolling them out to “secure” towns they can’t remain in, or to paint schools that parents are afraid to send their kids to is not sound strategy, and will result in more American casualties, IMHO. It’s NATION BUILDING, something this President had a few things to say about once:
>>>”But we can
Cobra,
our OWN GENERALS ARE CALLING FOR WITHDRAWALS.
Then, for the love of God, what is wrong with calling for withdrawals and actually calling them “withdrawals”? Is this so goddanged complicated? If it’s obvious to everyone that we have to get out, why the fiction that Murtha, et al. propose “redeploying” troops “out of Iraq” to … well, who cares, I take it, as long as it isn’t Iraq?
I thought “redeployment” meant active duty, but somewhere else. In which case some curiosity as to where the troops would go next would be warranted. I’ve never heard of a unit being “redeployed” to home. And if that’s what’s meant, just say it already.
If the “insurgents” “redeployed” out of Iraq to another location (say, Syria or, as Rep. Murtha incredibly suggested, Okinawa(!), would that be seen as a victorious move by the “insurgents” and a defeat for the U.S.? Or would such a move be seen instead as a surrender by and defeat of the “insurgents”? Maybe someone will argue that the insurgents would merely be redeploying to get out of harm’s way and blunt the effectiveness of U.S. military weapons.
“They simply favor redeploying all the troops out of there to somewhere else.”
Maybe somewhere having to do with the war on terror?
What did you have in mind, actus? Invading Saudi Arabia?
It’s NATION BUILDING, something this President had a few things to say about once:
“But we can
“What did you have in mind, actus? Invading Saudi Arabia?
It would be more related to terror than Iraq. Maybe Afghanistan too.
But its not just troops we have in iraq, but resources as well.
No, Richard, in their minds there wasn’t.
—
Put them on the border and they’re going to be in harm’s way, too. Where do we redeploy them to?
You see, this is where the neo-con fairy-tale falls short again.
>>>”Cobra, think real hard. Was there anything that happened between October 11, 2000 and now that could have caused Bush to change his position?”
Yes. 19 primarily Saudi hijackers from Al Qaeda attacked us under the direction of Osama Bin Laden. How that would be prevented in the future by invading Iraq and “nation building” I would like to hear from you.
Elblogero writes:
>>>”If the “insurgents” “redeployed” out of Iraq to another location (say, Syria or, as Rep. Murtha incredibly suggested, Okinawa(!), would that be seen as a victorious move by the “insurgents” and a defeat for the U.S.?”
Why would “Saddamists” or “Rejectionists”, who’s goal is to end US occupation of Iraq leave the country after the US has stopped occupying their own country?
Michelle writes:
>>>”Then, for the love of God, what is wrong with calling for withdrawals and actually calling them “withdrawals”? Is this so goddanged complicated? If it’s obvious to everyone that we have to get out, why the fiction that Murtha, et al. propose “redeploying” troops “out of Iraq” to … well, who cares, I take it, as long as it isn’t Iraq?”
Because of the mess the Bush Administration has created in Iraq, there has to be some sort of emergency intervention force with logistical support in the area to fortify an Iraqi Army that is untrained, untrustworthy and ill-equipped. There is a huge difference between having rapid-response Marine or 82nd Airborne units ready to act on command and having reserve and supply units ferrying back and forth to fixed position encampments across miles of unsecured roads and ambush zones succeptible to attack from mortars, rocket propelled grenades, sniper fire and I.E.D’s.
–Cobra
Yes. 19 primarily Saudi hijackers from Al Qaeda attacked us under the direction of Osama Bin Laden. How that would be prevented in the future by invading Iraq and “nation building” I would like to hear from you.
Its called changing the dynamics in the Middle East. The concept is that by promoting Democracy in the Middle East we will remove the breading grounds for terrorism. Clearly the old policy didn
“The concept is that by promoting Democracy in the Middle East we will remove the breading grounds for terrorism. ”
So getting rid of the secular enemy of iran and instead letting the Supreme Council for islamic revolution in Iraq come close to power will change the dynamics for the better? Of course! why would anyone think otherwise? And of course there was no other way to ‘change the dynamics’ in the middle east.
Its policy by fashionable business speak. Next we’ll hear that Iran needs to start ‘thinking outside the box.’
So actus, since when has the Left gone in for realpolitik? I though you were opposed to the mass murder of third world people by a ruthless dictator. So the truth of the matter is you couldn
“I though you were opposed to the mass murder of third world people by a ruthless dictator”
Sure. Isn’t everyone?
“So the truth of the matter is you couldn
Some more examples of things to care about.
I care about the people of darfur. It doesn’t mean I want an invasion. I care about the people being repressed in china, don’t mean I want a war. I care about young women murdered in ciudad juarez, Don’t mean I want to occupy mexico.
Grow up and look around and you’ll see that the world is more than black/white, more than the my-way or the highway that the fratboys in charge are promoting.
Actus,
Doesn’t it bother you just a bit that the left can “care” about things and people but be content with doing nothing that will really aid them (and, please, can we at least agree, especially in light of the oil-for-food fiasco, that tying aid to Iraqi human rights is not really helping?).
Obviously, military action isn’t always the solution (in fact, it isn’t even always among the options), but the message from the left seems to always be “we care, you know, as long as we don’t have to do anything military.” Not that there is anything wrong with that. Action should not be based on caring, but rather national interests. The axiom that the U.S. has no perpetual friends or enemies, but only perpetual interests is always a good place to start.
Thanks actus for explaining your moral system to us. It would appear that there is no evil in the world that you would be willing to oppose through force of arms. The only thing that matters is that you care.
Grow up and look around and you’ll see that the world is more than black/white, more than the my-way or the highway that the fratboys in charge are promoting.
Don
“It would appear that there is no evil in the world that you would be willing to oppose through force of arms.”
Um. No. Its that there are lots of ways to oppose evil. Why again the dichotomy? Of course there are evils that ‘force of arms’ should stop. But there isn’t a dichotomy between whether one chooses a war or whether one doesn’t care. Did you miss that entire point?
“I can
Richard writes:
>>>”By the way Cobra since when did you become a military strategist? So your idea is to have a US force that can go in and blow things up and them leave. That should win the hearts and minds of the people.”
The US military has NEVER done a good job of winning the hearts and minds of a people they are OCCUPYING. Give me an example of where I’m wrong in that assertion. According to Iraqi polls, they don’t want us there.
By the way, the military is DESIGNED to “go in, blow things up and then leave.” It’s the job of diplomats to win hearts and minds.
Elblogero writes:
>>>”Doesn’t it bother you just a bit that the left can “care” about things and people but be content with doing nothing that will really aid them (and, please, can we at least agree, especially in light of the oil-for-food fiasco, that tying aid to Iraqi human rights is not really helping?).”
Are you saying that the estimated 30,000 to 100,000 plus dead Iraqis is a better end result than corruption and loss of funds to Saddam Hussein and crooked corporations?
–Cobra
Yes, Cobra, that’s ALL that having Saddam in power meant: corruption and loss of funds. Geez . . . .
Do you not care about repression in china? See how stupid your line of reasoning is? Its fratboy stupid. And its in charge.
Actus, you are losing your cool. Nobody but you is talking about war with China. The point is that you have no principles. I am sorry if the truth hurts.
Cobra,
Because of the mess the Bush Administration has created in Iraq, there has to be some sort of emergency intervention force with logistical support in the area to fortify an Iraqi Army that is untrained, untrustworthy and ill-equipped.
Oookay. Remember that the troops were to be “redeployed” “out of Iraq.” They are still to be “in the area,” you say. Now where would that be, exactly? Jordan? Syria? Iran? Don’t be silly. Kuwait is at least minimally plausible. Or does “in the area” mean sort of “well, they can get there in 48 hours, if the weather’s decent”?
And the “untrustworthy” bit is galling, Cobra. You sign on for the Iraqi army, and there are immediately lots of people who want to kill you, many of them with the means to do it. I don’t blame people for getting cold feet in those circumstances. The remarkable thing is that so few have.
actus,
There are lots of ways to care for the Iraqi people. Back in the 80’s one way to do it was by tying our aid to iraq to human rights standards.
You mean, withhold aid as long as Saddam is putting his political enemies through plastic shredders, and gassing ethnic minorities to death by the thousands? That sounds like a terrific plan. If a dictator is torturing his people, don’t give them any food!
Understand, I know that in some circumstances that really is the only open course. But I haven’t seen it actually work yet.
By the way, the military is DESIGNED to “go in, blow things up and then leave.” It’s the job of diplomats to win hearts and minds.
For some reason Cobra you chose to ignore the point I made when I criticized your military strategy, namely, that the purpose of a rapid reaction force is to fight a military foe, not terrorists. So I will ask again, how is this great strategy of yours going to stop the terrorists from killing large number of their fellow Arabs? Just what is this rapid reaction force supposed to do after the car bomb has been set off?
The rhetorical “redeployment” fig leaf is just another example of Gen. McClellan declaring he wasn’t retreating, just “changing his base,” as I’ve noted before. What is the point of keeping troops poised somewhere nearby? Since the threat in Iraq is not from some army, under what conditions would the permanently poised troops be sent back into Iran? If it seems likely that they’ll be needed, why take them out in the first place?
Murtha says that with “redeployment” “American lives would be saved, while keeping mission capability available.” Well, yes, giving up and going home would save some American lives, in the short run, but what “mission” would we still be capable of if all the troops were out of Iraq? And by the way, if they were in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, what would prevent the terrorists from attacking them there? The logic of Murtha’s proposal, insofar as it has any logic, is that the troop need to be brought back to fortress America. The Democrats used to criticize people who favored that as isolationists, at least until they took up the cry in response to Vietnam.
John,
And by the way, if they were in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, what would prevent the terrorists from attacking them there?
You might add that Osama bin Laden’s primary beef with the US was that there were American bases in Saudi Arabia. I’m not sure what the White House has been thinking about this, but Mark Steyn has been pointing out for the last two years that if Iraq is stable and democratic, we will not need bases in Saudi Arabia, because we won’t have to hover around defending Kuwait from Saddam.
“Actus, you are losing your cool. Nobody but you is talking about war with China.”
It must be because I’m the only one that cares. Or that’s what an idiot would say. And now you got the point.
“You mean, withhold aid as long as Saddam is putting his political enemies through plastic shredders, and gassing ethnic minorities to death by the thousands? That sounds like a terrific plan. If a dictator is torturing his people, don’t give them any food!”
He had enough money for food. We were giving him extra agricultural credits. The dems in congress tried to stop it. But Reagan said no, the better way to affect Iraqi human rights was to continue to give them agricultural credits. I can’t figure it out either.
“You might add that Osama bin Laden’s primary beef with the US was that there were American bases in Saudi Arabia.”
So lets appease him by moving out. Sounds great!
actus,
He had enough money for food. We were giving him extra agricultural credits. The dems in congress tried to stop it. But Reagan said no, the better way to affect Iraqi human rights was to continue to give them agricultural credits. I can’t figure it out either.
You are moving pretty rapidly over the Bush Sr. and Clinton years here, are you not? Or are you just forgetting the US sanctions that were said to have killed a hundred thousand Iraqi children? Granted, they shortly became the “UN sanctions,” which had “worked” and were the reason there weren’t any WMD. Never mind the 100,000 dead children, and please don’t call them the “US sanctions” any more. “UN,” please.
“Or are you just forgetting the US sanctions that were said to have killed a hundred thousand Iraqi children? ”
That’s a different matter than giving an oil rich country more agricultural credits. There’s letting in no food, and there’s not giving the a guy with money more money to buy our food.
“Granted, they shortly became the “UN sanctions,” which had “worked” and were the reason there weren’t any WMD”
Well, that and the inspections and the destruction programs, as well as clinton’s sometimes bombing.
“ever mind the 100,000 dead children, and please don’t call them the “US sanctions” any more. “UN,” please.”
THis is what the UN is good for: putting a multinational stamp on our actions.
You see, again this discussion is fascinating because the fact remains that Saddam Hussein at his bloodiest was an ally of the United States government under Reagan, and received American support for its war with Iran.
Of course, Reagan was also dealing arms for hostages with Iran at the same time, making a two-fer with “Axis of Evil” members.
Making this even more fascinating is the fact that the CURRENT Vice President had his own financial interests in rogue states and “evil-doers”.
>>>”During last year’s presidential campaign, Richard B. Cheney acknowledged that the oil-field supply corporation he headed, Halliburton Co., did business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries. But he insisted that he had imposed a “firm policy” against trading with Iraq.
“Iraq’s different,” he said.
According to oil industry executives and confidential United Nations records, however, Halliburton held stakes in two firms that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer of the Dallas-based company.”
Cheney and Saddam two-step
Now that we’ve established that there are obviously alternative viewpoints on relationships with rogue states, let’s look at some of these comments:
Michelle writes:
>>>”Oookay. Remember that the troops were to be “redeployed” “out of Iraq.” They are still to be “in the area,” you say. Now where would that be, exactly? Jordan? Syria? Iran? Don’t be silly. Kuwait is at least minimally plausible. Or does “in the area” mean sort of “well, they can get there in 48 hours, if the weather’s decent”?”
Kuwait is an excellent idea. You would think that Kuwait, more than anybody else in the region has little bit more of an inclination to help us out given recent history, don’t you think? That, plus available carrier groups should be more than enough support for a mission where, according to our President, “Major military operations have ended” 2 years ago.
Michelle writes:
>>>”And the “untrustworthy” bit is galling, Cobra. You sign on for the Iraqi army, and there are immediately lots of people who want to kill you, many of them with the means to do it.”
I’m quoting from uncensored soldiers and officials in the field who actually have to deal with the Iraqi Security Force. If you don’t take my word for it:
>>>”The Iraqi police force is considered the biggest failure, being poorly equipped and trained. US officials also say that tens of thousands of Iraqis are claiming police salaries but are not working, and nearly half of the force has been sent for further training.
A police colonel told the IoS: “I keep on hearing that we have been trained and we have been given the arms necessary by the Americans. But I seem to have missed all that. We have had people sent here who I would not trust at all. I have discovered that the Americans have made no checks on these men. Do you wonder why police stations and army barracks get blown up?”
No Trust
And even our OWN troops have problems–
Desertion and Low Morale
And this STUPIFYING article here about Training the Iraqi Security Forces:
>>>”once properly trained Iraqi forces are in charge of their own destiny, can American troops start to deploy out of the area and begin trickling back home.
But before any of this can happen, Iraq needs its soldiers, officers and security personnel trained. Yet, inexplicably, the Bush administration, which in the past has asked for help from Arab and European countries, has not responded to offers from Egypt to help train Iraqi troops, said Nabil Fahmy, Egypt’s ambassador to Washington.
Egypt is one country that has repeatedly offered its services to Iraq and to the United States but, he says, the offers on military training are consistently ignored.”
Egypt offer to train thousands of Iraqi Troops Refused
Now, given the sum of this information, and given the fact that President Bush states himself that the mission hinges upon the Iraqi forces being able to “stand up, so that we can stand down”, you hawks on the right should be screaming for answers regarding this information.
John writes:
>>>” Since the threat in Iraq is not from some army, under what conditions would the permanently poised troops be sent back into Iran(q)? If it seems likely that they’ll be needed, why take them out in the first place?”
You’ve answered your own question here, John. If the threat in Iraq is not from an opposing Army, why indeed is this a military OCCUPATION operation for the US?
If you would’ve said it’s a job for a Delta Force or Navy Seal operation–snatch and grap, or assassination, that’s a different story. Poppy Bush did that to Noriega in Panama, and there are probably countless other black ops going on we’re never going to hear about. And you know what? I don’t neccessarily disagree with many of those activities, especially regarding terrorists.
Finding specific terrorists in a general population is a job for stealth, intelligence, surveilance, and information, plus inside help, IMHO. If the subject can be acquired, located and taken out of the picture, mindful of innocent civilians, I won’t lose too much sleep over it, believe me.
That being said, what does that kind of operation have to do with having National Guardsmen dodging roadside bombs to paint schools?
Painting Schools and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
–Cobra
You see, again this discussion is fascinating because the fact remains that Saddam Hussein at his bloodiest was an ally of the United States government under Reagan, and received American support for its war with Iran.
Of course, Reagan was also dealing arms for hostages with Iran at the same time, making a two-fer with “Axis of Evil” members.
Making this even more fascinating is the fact that the CURRENT Vice President had his own financial interests in rogue states and “evil-doers”.
>>>”During last year’s presidential campaign, Richard B. Cheney acknowledged that the oil-field supply corporation he headed, Halliburton Co., did business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries. But he insisted that he had imposed a “firm policy” against trading with Iraq.
“Iraq’s different,” he said.
According to oil industry executives and confidential United Nations records, however, Halliburton held stakes in two firms that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer of the Dallas-based company.”
Cheney and Saddam two-step
Now that we’ve established that there are obviously alternative viewpoints on relationships with rogue states, let’s look at some of these comments:
Michelle writes:
>>>”Oookay. Remember that the troops were to be “redeployed” “out of Iraq.” They are still to be “in the area,” you say. Now where would that be, exactly? Jordan? Syria? Iran? Don’t be silly. Kuwait is at least minimally plausible. Or does “in the area” mean sort of “well, they can get there in 48 hours, if the weather’s decent”?”
Kuwait is an excellent idea. You would think that Kuwait, more than anybody else in the region has little bit more of an inclination to help us out given recent history, don’t you think? That, plus available carrier groups should be more than enough support for a mission where, according to our President, “Major military operations have ended” 2 years ago.
Michelle writes:
>>>”And the “untrustworthy” bit is galling, Cobra. You sign on for the Iraqi army, and there are immediately lots of people who want to kill you, many of them with the means to do it.”
I’m quoting from uncensored soldiers and officials in the field who actually have to deal with the Iraqi Security Force. If you don’t take my word for it:
>>>”The Iraqi police force is considered the biggest failure, being poorly equipped and trained. US officials also say that tens of thousands of Iraqis are claiming police salaries but are not working, and nearly half of the force has been sent for further training.
A police colonel told the IoS: “I keep on hearing that we have been trained and we have been given the arms necessary by the Americans. But I seem to have missed all that. We have had people sent here who I would not trust at all. I have discovered that the Americans have made no checks on these men. Do you wonder why police stations and army barracks get blown up?”
No Trust
And even our OWN troops have problems–
Desertion and Low Morale
And this STUPIFYING article here about Training the Iraqi Security Forces:
>>>”once properly trained Iraqi forces are in charge of their own destiny, can American troops start to deploy out of the area and begin trickling back home.
But before any of this can happen, Iraq needs its soldiers, officers and security personnel trained. Yet, inexplicably, the Bush administration, which in the past has asked for help from Arab and European countries, has not responded to offers from Egypt to help train Iraqi troops, said Nabil Fahmy, Egypt’s ambassador to Washington.
Egypt is one country that has repeatedly offered its services to Iraq and to the United States but, he says, the offers on military training are consistently ignored.”
Egypt offer to train thousands of Iraqi Troops Refused
Now, given the sum of this information, and given the fact that President Bush states himself that the mission hinges upon the Iraqi forces being able to “stand up, so that we can stand down”, you hawks on the right should be screaming for answers regarding this information.
John writes:
>>>” Since the threat in Iraq is not from some army, under what conditions would the permanently poised troops be sent back into Iran(q)? If it seems likely that they’ll be needed, why take them out in the first place?”
You’ve answered your own question here, John. If the threat in Iraq is not from an opposing Army, why indeed is this a military OCCUPATION operation for the US?
If you would’ve said it’s a job for a Delta Force or Navy Seal operation–snatch and grab, or assassination, that’s a different story. Poppy Bush did that to Noriega in Panama, and there are probably countless other black ops going on we’re never going to hear about. And you know what? I don’t neccessarily disagree with many of those activities, especially regarding terrorists.
Finding specific terrorists in a general population is a job for stealth, intelligence, surveilance, and information, plus inside help, IMHO. If the subject can be acquired, located and taken out of the picture, mindful of innocent civilians, I won’t lose too much sleep over it, believe me.
That being said, what does that kind of operation have to do with having National Guardsmen dodging roadside bombs to paint schools?
Painting Schools and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
–Cobra
That’s a different matter than giving an oil rich country more agricultural credits. There’s letting in no food, and there’s not giving the a guy with money more money to buy our food.
actus, that’s going to need some parsing.
short question: Were the UN sanctions wrong?
Long question: Who was responsible for imposing the UN sanctions? How many people did they kill (please separate out child deaths)?
“Long question: Who was responsible for imposing the UN sanctions? How many people did they kill (please separate out child deaths)?”
Didn’t the US impose first sanctions, which then got moved into the UN sanctions with oil-for-food regime? Were they wrong? they didn’t seem to work very well at feeding people. And they did seem to kill more than help.
Now, you know the difference between sanctions on a country with no real exports and agricultural credits to a rich oil exporting dictator right?
actus,
The UN sanctions were certainly supposed to have killed large numbers of people. But that’s only before 2003, when they became the sanctions that “worked” in keeping WMD out of Saddam’s hands. Not that he would have wanted WMD, of course. The sanctions were just a way of protecting him from temptation, as it were. Not that he’d even be tempted. Stuff like biological warfare was absolutely the farthest thing from his mind. Far more important was getting that mole removed so that he could make that triumphal arch more symmetrical.
“But that’s only before 2003, when they became the sanctions that “worked” in keeping WMD out of Saddam’s hands. ”
Why can’t they do both? It was argued by the clinton administration that they were needed to keep saddam WMD free.
They weren’t just sanctions on food you know.
Cobra, troops are supposed to be in harm’s way. They’re supposed to kill and take the risk of being killed. That’s what an army does.
Anita writes:
>>>”Cobra, troops are supposed to be in harm’s way. They’re supposed to kill and take the risk of being killed. That’s what an army does.”
Signing on to serve in our nation’s armed forces is not tantamount to signing a suicide note. Yes, there is the grave risk of being wounded or killed in the line of duty, but there is also a responsibility for the civilian command of this nation’s military not to misuse this sacred pledge by our servicemen. Remember, we have a VOLUNTEER military, and not a draft. If we mistreat, abuse, misdeploy, overstretch, ill-equip, underpay, short-sheet, and NEEDLESSLY squander the lives of these volunteers, we’ll soon find us without enough to adequately meet our defense requirements.
Second, the “so what if they die, isn’t that what they signed up for” argument can’t be restricted to the military. Suppose I used that same rationale on police and fire-fighters? I highly doubt the conservative readers of Discriminations would applaud the needless deaths of thousands from that profession.
–Cobra
This is the fundamental point: whether this war is justified. if you think it is not then you think lives are wasted. I don’t think they are being wasted.