Iraq War ripe for criticism
All of the armchair quarterbacks are out in force this week, mostly criticizing the second war against Saddam Hussein, of course, most are calling it “the Iraq War” as if we were fighting against the people of Iraq, but, it wasn’t that at all. Most are saying that it was a war we should have avoided, but anyone who is saying that doesn’t remember the circumstances.
COB6 and I spent Easter, 1991 on the outskirts of Baghdad, we drove for two days unopposed from recently liberated Kuwait. At the moment of the enforced ceasefire at 8am (local time) February 28th, we had been engaged with a dismounted element of Iraqis. And suddenly we were given the order to end the engagement and turn right to drive from the battlefield with enemy bullets still pinging off our turrets.
We spent the next few weeks clearing ammunition from bunkers, destroying abandoned equipment and weapons until we were tasked to return to Iraq and screen for the Shi’ites escaping the wrath of Hussein. That’s when we went to Baghdad. Busloads of Shi’ites streamed through our hastily erected line of demarcation. We tended to the wounded and shared our food with the refugees.
In the distance we could hear the remnants of Hussein’s Republican guards having their way with the unarmed civilians. Some in our battalion set up a refugee camp tent village for the Shi’ites. Anyone who didn’t think that we’d be back to finish Hussein from our perspective was seriously deluded.
No fewer than three times in the next ten years, Hussein sent his troops to the Kuwait border again, and each time the US deployed thousands of troops to the pre-positioned equipment in Kuwait and prepared to be a speed-bump for the next annexation of the Nineteenth Provence. While our air forces patrolled the skies over the “no-fly zone”, they daily ducked and dodged the surface-to-air missiles.
Even if you disregard the weapons of mass destruction, which we all knew existed at some point before the invasion of Hussein’s Iraq, Saddam Hussein was not a stabilizing force in the region. He was paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel in order to continue the practice. There were al Qaeda training areas in Iraq, whether they operated with the permission of Hussein or not is not relevant, they existed and would continue to exist and train our enemies had we not shut down the dictator’s government.
You can argue for weeks about whether the war was fought as well as it could be fought or not, but whether it was a war we should have fought should not be in dispute. I’ll grant you that my generation should have been the force that toppled Saddam Hussein – we were the largest army in Iraq on Easter Day in 1991 and poised on the outskirts of the capital and it should have been accomplished then rather than ten years later, but there is no doubt in my mind that the war should have been fought regardless of when it was fought. My only regret was that it was my son’s generation which shouldered the task.
Category: Terror War
” . . . . but there is no doubt in my mind that the war should have been fought regardless of when it was fought. My only regret was that it was my son’s generation which shouldered the task.”
I agree, Jonn. IMO the two great mistakes in DS/DS were President Bush’s premature decision to cease hostilities and the late GEN Schwartzkopf’s acquiescence without asking for another 1 or 2 days to consolidate gains and remove future threats (e.g., complete the destruction of Iraq’s Republican Guards and other forces south of Baghdad).
The coalition might not have held together if we’d entered Baghdad and toppled the Baghdad Butcher directly. But I do believe the coalition would have held together while we took a few days longer to complete the destruction of his armies in the south. And if we’d finished off the Republican Guards, I am convinced his people would have taken him out before the end of the year – and maybe before the end of that summer.
I have said many times that I was against us going into Iraq when we did. My reasons were simple; we were already engaged in Afghanistan and I felt we should have finished that, first, but I saw that we were already starting to limit ourselves in Afghanistan, so I wasn’t too sure we had the will, as a nation, to achieve victory, before leaving. I was seeing shades of the protracted conflicts of the past, where we negotiated an end to hostilities, not actually through victory on our part or unconditional surrender on theirs. Negotiated peace only goes so far and lasts so long. I knew we would be back in Iraq within 20 years of the negotiated cease-fire in 1991, because negotiated “peace” is only temporary, where neither side is defeated, you are going to have a rematch later on. Look at the Korean Peninsula; the first negotiated cease-fire and they are still basically at each other. We will leave Afghanistan and will be back over there fighting again within 20 years time. Hell, the Taliban will probably be more than glad to help us pack to leave.
My thoughts on March 1, 1991 were “That’s it? We’re not going to finish this shit”
my thoughts on August 1, 2010 were “Man I hope this time were finished with this shit.”
Well said Jonn.
In the 90’s, when Saddam was sending his tanks towards Kuwait, or the POTUS was sending cruise missiles into building of Baghdad, I was often asked by the supporters of Clinton why we didn’t finish it the first time.
Some of the contributing factors to that answer were:
1) The Highway of Death. (MSM coverage threatened to go negative)
2) Iran (we wanted a counterbalance)
3) Uday and Qusay (they were actually worse than their father and poised to take over in his death.)
In 1999, I came across an AF pilot fresh from those “no-fly zones.” The lack of news coverage about the events, resulted in even me being surprised how often our planes were being shot at (from schools) by Saddam.
WMD and terrorists were only a couple of the more than 20 reasons Congress gave for approving the invasion of Iraq. Among the supporting politicians were Pelosi and Hillary, who stated uncategorically that Saddam had WMD, based on their independent knowledge, and Biden and Kerry, who voted for the war, before they were against it, and MANY many more of similiar persuasion.
Every time I hear war for oil I want to pimp slap whoever said it. My friends did not die or have their lives changed forever for oil.
The US did not take ONE drop of oil from Iraq, without paying market price for it, at least not through 2008, when the DNC started pressuring for Iraq to pay back the US for their liberation from Saddam.
Kuwait on the other hand gave the US, of their own free will, a LOT of free oil and fuel, for the wars in Iraq.
Most of the Gulf War coverage I saw was on C-Span, not on network TV, and was 24 hrs a day, live coverage. It was fine, the media reported on it constantly, and was supported as long as there were no pictures of dead and/or charred bodies on the screen.
It wasn’t until the Highway of Death photos were published and people in the UK objected to those that the objections to that war began. Then coverage became less constant. The reports on oil well fires were after-the-fact, not done when they occurred.
I never understood why anyone would tell Schwarskopf to not finish the job.
The comparison to the Korean War is apt. I think the generals over there see no reason to not ante up their threats with real action. Are WE, the good ol’ USoA going to stop them? With this president? He may threaten them with harsh words of warning, but what if the threats don’t work? He will probably not know what to do next.
Ex-PH2: my understanding was that the POTUS at the time – Bush(41) – was worried that his coalition partners and the public would turn against the war after the ignorant tools in the press began over-hyping that “Highway of Death” bull.
Both the press and the public assumed the Iraqi Army had been destroyed at that point. It hadn’t; a retreating army – even one fleeing in disarray – can relatively quickly stop, reorganize, and return to the fight. They’re still a threat until they’ve surrendered or been destroyed. And in any case, the Republican Guard was still reasonably intact.
“100,000 dead” my ass. Most of the vehicles there were destroyed empty or nearly so. Later estimates put the death toll at 10% or so of what the press was claiming at the time.
Some years ago, I read a published account of conversation leading to the cease fire. It went something like this:
POTUS: General, I want to stop the killing. Can I?
(Longish pause.)
SCHWARTZKOPH: I can support that, Mr. President.
I won’t swear those are exact quotes, but they’re damned close. That account wasn’t something I’d forget easily.
To those of you who did your duty, whatever the circumstance and whatever your personal view then or now, the country owes you a great debt that will never be paid. I wholeheartedly believe that to be true. When others were elsewhere doing whatever the hell they were doing, you showed up. As far as I know, no American troops were ever surveyed or given a say-so in what they would do and where they would do, let alone whether they agreed or disagreed with a chosen course of action in any armed conflict. History may not be kind to the decisionmakers, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with those who did what their nation asked of them.
Yeah, Hondo. No one ever got Schwarzkopf to say exactly what went on, and now he’s gone, so we’ll never know.
I just hope we’re ready for whatever is next. I expect to see things heating up in the next two years.
Sitting in the neighborhood in the spring of 1991, it was extremely frustrating. More than one of us articulated phrases like, “So WHY can’t we finish the job now instead of coming back in 10 years?” My understanding at the time was pretty simple – the coalition forces had agreed to liberate Kuwait and nothing more. So, “the job” was done even though the problem was not resolved.
It’s amazing that 20 years after the fact and those who weren’t there/involved know so little about what went on, hell, what GOES on there to this day.
I wasn’t there, but knowing some folks who were, they all said to a man immediately afterwards, it wasn’t a question of IF we’d go back in, but when.
War for oil? Shit, I ran into some skulls full of mush who claimed WE ARMED SADDAM in the 70’s and 80’s. I shit you not. Hey Jonn, who knew Reagan/Bush sent Soviet T-55’s and T-72’s to go up against your units?
Ex-PH2: the conversation in question was either by secure VTC or secure telephone (I believe the latter). There were multiple participants besides President Bush and GEN Schwarzkopf. If I recall correctly, the CJCS and SECDEF were both participants.
Bottom line: the account is valid. It was first published close to 20 years ago (during the early Clinton administration, as I recall). And as I recall, it also wasn’t disputed by Schwarzkopf after publication, either.
Not speaking up at that point is really IMO the only serious error that Schwarzkopf made as CENTCOM Commander prior to or during hostilities. And even that decision is understandable: the POTUS is the CINC, and it was a decision Schwarzkopf apparently felt he could live with, even if he didn’t like it. But if he had serious reservations, IMO he should have stated them then and there. Given how Bush had given him free reign up to that point, I have no doubt Bush would have given him a day or two longer had Schwarzkopf indicated he felt he needed them.
Except for that one decision, IMO Schwarzkopf did as close to perfect a job as a theater commander can. His performance as theater commander before and during the war was otherwise absolutely masterful.
For what it’s worth: Schwarzkopf later publicly acknowledged a second, postwar error. He later indicated that he was hoodwinked by the Iraqis into allowing their use of helicopters in the southern no-fly zone for “resupply”. The Baghdad Butcher ended up using those helicopters for resupply – as well as to kill thousands of “marsh Arabs” while putting down the post-war rebellion in southern Iraq. But that was post-hostilities.
The first 12 months out of 16 months of my first tour was spent in Mosul. The Kurds were extremely happy that we were there. Try telling them that the 2nd Gulf War wasn’t worth it.
@8 100,000 might well be the number that Hussein killed after we left….depending on whose numbers you like, after Hussein’s losing Kuwait in 1991 the persecution of Northern Kurds and Southern Shi’ites left anywhere from 80,000 (20k Kurds 60k Shi’ites) to 230,000 or so (100,000 Kurds/130,000 Shi’ites) over the next few years…
It makes a strong case that the job should have been done in 1991.
@5 I hope you are right.
I can remember the day I flew home, looking out the window of the plane thinking…”we’re gonna have to come back to this shithole…”
I agree wholeheartedly, Jonn. I’m an OIF vet as well (OIF II, 2004) although I spent all my time “in the rear with the gear” in Kuwait.
I’ll also admit that I agreed with Bush I’s end to the first gulf war in 1991 (I was stationed at Ft Lewis at the time and didn’t participate, just watched it on TV like everyone else) because I didn’t think we as a nation would be ready for the occupation that would inevitably follow. After 9/11, though, I realized that all we had done WRT to Hussien was to kick the can down the street and created a problem that we would have to deal with sooner or later.
Sometimes, often times, in fact, the right thing isn’t easy and the easy thing isn’t right.
So the occupation happened, and it was as unpopular as I’d feared it would be, but nevertheless, I maintain that it was the right thing to do.
It took this country more than a decade to come to terms with Vietnam (I guess some would say we’re still coming to terms with it.) My guess is that it will take at least a decade, and perhaps a fresh crisis elsewhere, before we can start to look at Iraq with eyes untainted by current partisan political viewpoints.
Nevertheless, those that served, served with honor, did their duty, and are deserving of the respect and recognition that is due to any American soldier, sailor, airman or marine who serves his country in time of war.
martin–I’d say we never have come to grips with Vietnam, at least from an “all-out war” standpoint. We still allow our enemies to find safe haven across a border in a “neutral” country from which they can stage, train, rest, and recruit.
From that regard, this government (and more than just this administration, to be fair) has learned nothing from the lessons of history.
Having been in Iraq twice, including the “major combat operations,” I can tell you that this conflict has not been fought appropriately. That said, I can say that the reasons that we went into Iraq are not negated by public perception. What we found after the fact when we went in is something that those of us who were there knew was reason enough to go in, even though it was unlikely to change the minds of those who were against the conflict. We really just needed stronger leadership when we got in there, and people willing to do what was necessary to complete the job correctly.
As I sit typing this on my second deployment (yeah, I’m “lucky”), it is hard to believe that ten years ago my platoon was about to air assault into FARP Shell. Tomorrow marks the anniversary of the first time we donned promasks and ran to the bunkers to wait for the “all clear”–now my NBC gear sits under my bunk all but forgotten. Camp New Jersey, Camp Udairi, FARP Shell, Saddam International, and the Secretariat have all been relegated to the history books, though I’m sure the Kurds we later assisted remember the first Americans they saw in 2003. It is easy to look back and critique our reasons for being there and our methods of waging war, but those of us on the ground at the time had all the justification we needed. Many of us remembered the Gulf War (I was in middle school at the time), and knew that Saddam had used chemical weapons in the past (hence our being in MOPP Level 1 from 19 March until after just before the Battle of Baghdad). We knew that our presence was both just and necessary, and many of the Iraqi people greeted us as liberators for the duration of my deployment.
I realize this has little to do with the original post, but the Army has changed quite a bit since 19 March 2003. Many good Soldiers and men/women never came home, while those of us who did come home got out of the Army or went on to multiple combat tours between Iraq and Afghanistan (with a select few–myself included until recently–who stayed in and weren’t called up to go back). Everything about this deployment is different: from the attitude of Soldiers who are already counting down the days until they go home to the infrastructure and the ways we handle those trying to kill us.
I remember laying on top of my LMTV trailer looking up at the sky with my NVGs, when all of a sudden the Tomohawks ripped overhead. We were ten miles from the border of Iraq, and we were all tired as hell. The night before they wheeled in an old tv and VCR and played the President’s 48 hour speach. We were then told to get to work as that had been taped 24 hours before lol. I was in Ground Assault Convoy 6 which was mostly green jungle colored vehicles with all the Hummers being cloth tops with no doors. The brits had spent their time at Udairi (Which became Beuhring later but will always be Udairi to me), spray painting their stuff desert sand colored. Imagine their surprise when they found that the sand in Kuwait was different colored from the sand in Iraq… The very first thing we saw as people begging for food. I will never forget that. It was a damned dirt road with signs every hundred miles that read “ROUTE HURRICANE” and was surely laid out by someone with a compass and no need to deviate. It was 5 miles an hour several nights. We parked near a field of landmines a couple times. Little tilt rods poking out of the sand like desert weeds just ten feet from our trucks. No villages within miles and yet somehow lines of people begging for anything. We stopped at a place called Camp Shell where we bedded down for the first really big stores. You dreaded stopping because you always saw someone in full MOPP. And if you saw someone, you had to put it on yourself. No radios. We had motorolas that the First Sergeant had smartly bought. When we drove through Baghdad people were smiling to see us. An old guy in a wheelchair rolled up with no legs. Tossed me a soda. He was so happy he was crying. I asked a nearby terp who was working with a news crew (The only people with a working blue force tracker kinda thingy) and… Read more »
Holy shit, looks like 20 and me had fond memories of the storms at Shell at the same time lol!
@12 and 16 RE: Coming back. It’s interesting how many of us put a ten year time frame on that, regardless of our individual perspectives.
I’ve been a dissenting voice before and remain so today. Sitting just south of the Euphrates in 1991, I also thought we were daft to not simply ened the Hussein problem then and there. I didn’t realize at that time, that we would have faced the same issues we faced in 2003, and continued to face durng my next tour.
In removing the Hussein regime, we stripped the gulf region of the counter-weight to Iranian aspirations. Adding to that we find ourselves not with a gulf ally, but with a pro-Iranian regime in Baghdad. We invaded at just about the most inopportune time, causing our AFG adventure to drag on longer than it might have, and siphioned precious resources away from fixing and targeting those who attacked our homeland. WMDs remain a hypothesis.
#24 CI: Hussein wasn’t so much a counter-weight as a rival of Iran. When it came to terrorism, Hussein was a part-time ally. The only counter-weight to Iran at the time was Israel (with American backing).
As for Afghanistan, we lost that war when Bush-43 agreed to stay within borders found on a map which are not based on demographics. The Soviets made the same mistake. The Army contributed to that loss starting in the 1980s, when firepower was unlearned at the CTCs.
As a hypothesis WMD were proven. Not even an arguable theory any more. PVT Bradley Manning released that information, and even the prognazis don’t argue it any more.
DaveO they still arugue that.
There are no good wars. There are no just wars. There are wars when nations and people become angry enough or threatened enough to get up and do something to each other. War, Expeditionary Force, Police Action, yadayadayad. Call it what you will and second guess it as much as you want. But when you second guess, remember the times in which the action took place, the mood of the nations involved and most importantly, the mood of the people at the time of the action. In a nutshell, you second guessers-go to blazes.
@DaveO – Even Bush 43 admitted that the intelligence failure of the run up to 2003, was the biggest regret of his presidency. A few tons of yellowcake that we knew about before 2003 and some moldering stocks of chemical rounds, does not equal the justification presented for invasion.
Your sentiments on AFG have some merit, but the fact remains that we pushed the fight against terrorist groups to the back burner in favor of OIF.
What is not arguable is the incestuous relationship that the Iraqi political strata has with Tehran. Deposing the Hussein regime may have been a worthwhile effort in another paradigm, one where we had not been attacked by AQ, so I can certainly dispute the basis for when and why we invaded.
[…] blog of the day is This ain’t Hell… with a post on the Iraq […]
Uh, @27? Most of us aren’t second-guessers here, in case you were wondering.
And read up on your Mill, Thomas Aquinas, Salamanca, and Cicero, for starters.
For WOTN: One question: was the “market price” we paid worth the lives we lost? We, as a people, as a nation, as a world power, need to reevaluate our morals, our ethics, our belief in God. We need to start with properly educating our children, instilling in them the values we seem to have lost or misplaced, and we need to begin NOW.
Which “values” might those be, Mike? That if our interests and security is at risk, it’s best to blame ourselves and cower in the corner in the hopes they go away?
Civis Romanus Sum. Time was the Goths, etc., knew better than to fuck with someone who made that statement.
I am an American. Today in the Obama “everyone will love us” world, that’s a license to fuck with us.
Sorry, I’d rather be feared than liked. General Mattis had it right.
Afghanistan was, is and always will be a fucking trap. Use METT-TC and define some comprehensible victory there, I’ll be damned if I can.
Regarding Iraq, Saddam was our enemy. Leaving UBL aside he was our most prominent enemy in the days after 9/11 and, as we now know, UBL was being protected by treacherous, nuclear Pakistan. When we deposed Saddam we sent the message “it’s bad to be our enemy”. Even Qaddafi took that message to heart. Iraq is far from perfect today, but it gave us the best chance for a real victory. We probably won’t know whether we won for at least 20 years, but I can flat out guarantee it will be better then than Afghanistan.
@31. Mike: You might want to add more detail because no one can tell what exactly you are saying. That’s not meant as a criticism. Everything you wrote can be taken at least two altogether different ways.
This is possible the best article/post I have read on the “Iraq War”.
It is getting old hearing the double talk about what could, should, or was done incorrectly. Usually be people who were safe at home, and have forgotten what their thoughts were at the time.
thank you john for this excellent piece!
Sparky, I was referring to the value of life over the value of oil. Personally, I’m trying to learn more about the ramifications of war, what we weigh when we make those decisions, and how we might avoid our mistakes in the future. I’m taking a class in social justice, and questions like: what is a “just war” has come up and I’m just trying to work it out for myself, but i think that so many people, especially vets are trying to figure it out as well. As for “values” I’m asking about our values as a country versus the “common good,” I do understand the the necessity of war, to defend one’s country, but at what cost, and did we pursue all options, and weigh all the ramifications prior to, or, did we rush to judge?
Our own press talks about the number of casualties we’ve suffered, but what about the 1,000’s of independent contractors & innocent victims, not to mention what’s to become of these people when we pull out? I’m not blaming any one person, just asking all of us to think of others before we act for ourselves.
There are good wars. There are just wars. There are circumstances and situations in which going to war in defense of others is right and good, just as coming to the aid of a street crime victim is right and good. The difference with the victim situation is that one has the option of helping or not. Our military does not enjoy such a choice. I say again that those who served in the ME did their duty and for that, however inadequate our appreciation most certainly is, the nation should be grateful. What turns my gut is those who wonder whether lives were lost or otherwise forever changed unnecessarily. Questions such as, “Was it worth it?” are misplaced. The call for warring is made by those who get to make the call. That’s all. Those who must fight and bleed are not consulted. They do their duty and maintain the standard for those who follow or they do not and we suffer THOSE insufferable consequences. Sometimes, there are no grey areas.
Thank you Mr Lilyea. I was there in 1991 also, as well as in 2003 and I share your thoughts exactly. I very much felt that I was finally getting around to settling unfinished business.
It is a never ending source of annoyance to me to read and hear the revisionist narrative now having become the accepted story of the “Iraq War”. everyone has forgoten how much of America’s military resources were tied up in “containing” Saddam Hussien’s regime.
You are one of the few that still is willing to maintain perspective and stand up for the truth.
Thank you.
Sparky, I was referring to the value of life over the value of oil.
Newsflash–take away a valuable commodity like oil and see how many MORE lives are endangered.
I’m taking a class in social justice
Gee, color me shocked. Punching yourself in the nuts would be a more worthwhile endeavor. Just sayin.
Social justice? There is no such thing as social justice.
Utopia is nonextant, unless you like being part of a box of brain-dead mint meltaways – all exactly alike, all uniform in size, color and function. If you want to see that, take a look at one of the Norks’ parade days.
DuLoc is a perfect place until you get outside into the country.
I will say this one time so listen carefully. Do not ever tell me I fought a war for oil, I fought a war because my orders were to fight, I fought a war because I took an oath I take very seriously, I fought because of the man or woman to my left and right. I did not fight for fucking oil period, to even suggest that I did not only disrespects me, but every soldier that was over there sacrificing their bodies, families, and lives.
OIF II 04-05 1st ID
That should have been an @36 and not at Jonn or other posters, my Irish was up.
Well put, Robot. Our “interests” can go far beyond mere material convenience. That little tidbit seems to escape those who would find any excuse NOT to fight, even when given no other choice.
but i think that so many people, especially vets are trying to figure it out as well.
Nah, I think you have us confused, son. I think if ANYONE knows the whys/wherefores, and would love to live in peace more than anyone else, it’s the veteran.
But most of us who have seen the world beyond our front door, traveled to some of those shitholes that make you feel uncomfortable talking about, are why most of us believe, in the words of Heinlein, “You can have peace, or you can have freedom–don’t ever count on having both at once.”
The prize goes to Ex-PH2 for her Shrek reference
Twist: I don’t doubt it. There are people who still think 911 was an inside job.
CI: once Julian Assange published the stolen reports and other errata, all chatter on WMD stopped. Bush-43 was supporting his case for reforming the CIA. The CIA responded with a series of leaks, beginning with the ‘no WMD found’ meme to protect itself. The failure to reform that agency will have the greatest negative impact on America for the forseeable future.
All in all, Iraq was about more than just taking out Hussein. I expect we’ll be in Mali soon, now that the French are giving up and the Senate is plussing up the military budget in the new CR/maybe-budget.
@37 Vets did their job, they answered their nation’s call and did so with sacrifice and honor some giving their lives in the process. And I agree that their sacrifice is not understood or appreciated in an appropriate degree by those who served nothing but themselves. However, war can be justified or vilified on any number of positions at the time they are undertaken as well as much later after it has long been resolved. And, while I understand your comments about “was it worth it” I do think those debates are necessary even when uncomfortable. Every nation needs to determine what it values to the point it will sacrifice the lives of some of its young men and women to protect or attain. Especially a nation where civilians direct the actions of the military. Without a painful discussion like that, it is all too easy for a nation where 99% of the population would be unaffected by conflict to undervalue the lives of the 1% who will. I do not mean to suggest that a comment like it was a war for oil is appropriate, only that a conversation about the necessity to protect our strategic interests in the region through military action is not inappropriate. Our legislators did discuss this conflict and voted to prosecute the war as a result. Now that both Iraq conflicts are becoming historical items, historical perspective becomes especially relevant in my mind. I am in agreement that without a fundamental shift in leadership, once a nation/state is an enemy it is always an enemy. If there is a necessity to fight a war with that nation/state do so with overwhelming force and bring about the downfall of the government and the death of as many of its military forces as needed to render them incapable of resistance. While I understand the political expediency of how the first DS/DS ended, it’s clear it was not a strategic expediency with respect to ending the conflict. I suspect one could argue in a future history class that the war didn’t end in 1991, but instead became… Read more »
@39 “Punching yourself in the nuts would be a more worthwhile endeavor. Just sayin.”
Nice…social justice sounds like a class that some sad old hippie felt needed to be taught because he feels guilty about being an American….because that hippie was tenured I’m sure no one felt the need to stop him from wasting student time.
What good is a nation of educated people who worry about social justice when they can’t compete mathematically or scientifically with the folks who couldn’t give a rat’s ass about social or any other kind of justice?
@47. I’m there and I understand completely. If anyone wishes to discuss such things without calling into question the efforts of our troops and the value of their personal sacrifices and those of their families, I’m all for it. There are separate measures–at least in my book–for taking the gauge of our success in a bloody conflict, one for the pols/genearls and the other for our troops. I have seen those measures mixed up too often and it is that confusion which sickens me.
@DaveO – Cessation of ‘chatter’ is largely irrelevant. The Wikileaks dump only revealed to the public, what we in theater already knew….that there were small, dated [and of dubious lethality] stocks of chemical munitions scattered around the country, and that some of those found their way to enterprising insurgents. It did not reveal the active and massive WMD program proffered in 2002.
We’re already in Mali, just not to the nation-building extent that we still maintain in AFG. On the upsode, perhaps we’ll find a more legitimate host nation government in Bamako than we are saddled with in Kabul. Couldn’t be much worse.