Thursday, September 23, 2004

This Ain't Your Daddy's War - Part II

We Have Nothing To Fear, But Fear It's Self

Well, I had another post about "divide and conquer" all ready. Actually, I've got two, but, I know there is a limit to how much folks can read when I post my 10 page thesis on the subject. :)

But, someone stopped by to leave a comment and I wanted to bring it front and forward so we could talk and responses wouldn't get lost in the multiple postings I am want to do sometimes.

Peg Gartz writes:



Kat, The disrespect of the fallen soldier's family is a horrid story. I thought through Vietnam we had learned to protest the action of war while honoring those willing to fight for our country's policy.
I hate this war! My son spent 16 months there in a humvee. He also was decorated and brought all eight of his guys home. He'll probably go again after Jan 1. But he hates this war! He will fight it, but believes its pointless and is weakening the U.S. in the world. Disagreement with our government is our perogative, no OUR DUTY, as Americans. Patriotism is not determined by political party. Michael Moore's radical film does not represent all or even a majority, of democrats.


Go to the inner sanctum to see the rest of Peg's comments. I make some responses, but the first response is: Thank you.



I would not believe that a single Republican radical making nonsensical charges, such as Ann Coulter or Tucker Carlson, represents the entire party.
We should be able to disagree respectfully in America. Those of both parties serve. Those of both parties love our country and way of life.
BTW: As a lifelong Democrat, I would (and have) vote Republican, if a thoughtful, tolerant, moderate candidate appears...like a John McCain or Colin Powell. But four more years of lies like WMDs and imminent threats, followed by proclamations of false victory, rationalization and fear mongering, scares the hell out of me!
Peace to you
Peg

My first response was "Thank You" for many reasons. First, Peg's son is serving in the military and is returned from Iraq. Maybe "thank you" is too hollow or seems meaningless. Some soldiers have contended that they need no thanks because they are doing their duty. In this regard, I must respectfully decline that request and continue to say it: "Thank you".

I could say so much more. Maybe it would seem cheap and meaningless to someone who is far away and does not know me or I them. It is so little and costs nothing. But here, in this moment, it is what I can offer and I do so now with all my heart.

I also say "Thank you" to Peg for writing her comment and I hope she does not mind that I post it here. It is one of the few times that I have seen reasonable comments from someone that opposes the war and she brings up some important points.

First, I would like to discuss Michael Moore. I'm sure many people could say many things about him. Normally, I try to avoid any discussion of this guy because I think he has done our country a serious disservice. I liken him to Lord Haw Haw in World War II; Tokyo Rose; and the woman radio broadcaster from Vietnam (whose name escapes me right now; I'm sure somebody that reads this might remember and remind me in the comments). These folks all had something in common with Michael Moore. They created media methods in order to dishearten our populations and our troops, undermine our efforst during a war and, simply put, I refer to them as traitors. If we were in a declared war, Michael Moore would be tried for sedition and treason. But, we're not, so he is allowed to go on his merry way.

I also think that he has perpetrated one of the biggest hoaxes on a part of our population. No, I'm not talking about F 9/11. Certainly, that was a piece of work that will go down in the annals of history as the most publicized and lauded piece of garbage ever perpetrated on the film industry. I remember when he was booed at the Oscars and I think back to how many people that booed him then ran to his side of the argument as soon as what they thought they knew turned into something they did not expect.

The hoax that Michael Moore perpetrated on the American people is bigger than that film or the fact that it was lauded by "film critics". The hoax is that Michael Moore went around the world and told people in other countries that Americans were stupid. And then, he proved it by putting out this most egregious piece of garbage ever created and, not only did people believe it, but they paid money to see it. And he became the filthy rich capitalist he's been decrying all this time.

Some folks called him stupid. I hate to say it, but it has to be one of the most brilliant slight of hands ever done by a master magician. Bravo Mr. Moore.

In regards to the Democrats, I would like to point to several posts in archives where I discuss my lifelong adherence to this party. Yes, I have even confessed to voting for Al Gore in 2000. I had many grievances against Mr. Bush (I thought) regarding his domestic policies which I, now feeling foolish, believed were the most important areas of concern. I wrote many times how I had no idea that 19 men could come into my country and live among us and then slaughter us like cattle. But, even that was not what turned me away from the party.

Peg, if you read this, there is a long post in archives I was once a card carrying democrat - epiphany if you would like to hear why I turned away from the party we once shared. There were other posts about this, what I believe about taxes and abilities of people to be self sufficient. But I won't go into those. It is this post that puts it together.

Some would blame the Republicans for the division in our country. I must respectfully disagree. If you read my post from archives, I outline about three years worth of issues that I have with them and everyone of them is in regards to security and the future of this nation. I have been called a liar to say the least. People have insisted that there is no way that I could be a Democrat and say that I support President Bush or would vote Republican.

Every time they said that, it drove me away from the party even further, because, in the end, it was not the Republicans telling me that I was stupid or a liar. It was fellow Democrats.

Peg makes a comment about not putting all Democrats in the same boat with Mr. Moore. He and his ilk do not represent the party. Here again, I must respectfully disagree for several reasons. The first of which must be the mistake of placing Michael Moore in the President's box with Jimmy Carter at the convention. Or maybe that isn't a mistake. However one looks at it, it surely said to me that this is who the Democrats have chosen to represent them. It said to me that, even if they don't really buy all the things he put in the film, they are willing to use it, no matter how hurtful it is to some people or to our country, in order to win this election.

I am not blind.

I have also heard the Democrat talking crowd use his "talking points" from the film in their attacks. Things about "how many Congressmen or women's children serve in Iraq?" and "Haliburton/military/oil complex - this war is for them." Things that I have personally looked up and disproven as any indicator of this war.

Peg, if you would, there is a four part series that I investigated and wrote in this blog called "Blood For Oil" in which I specifically disprove that Halliburton received any special treatment beyond their known contracts with the Pentagon which they have held for over 12 years. Each time they were renegotiated. Every four years. They held this last contract since before the current administration.

You see, I didn't just take somebody's word for it. I looked it up myself. I also looked up how much oil Iraq produces or could even produce within the next 10 years. Let us just say, Iraq could never repay us for the expenses of our war in that time period.

So, when you implore me not to look at Michael Moore as a representative of the Democrat party, as much as we might wish it not to be, I'm afraid that he is. At least the base of the party. Certainly, some of it is watered down a bit by time it reaches the more centrist folks, but I'm afraid it's still there.

Shall we talk of WMD? I researched that, too. I researched everything that the President said about it and everything I could find about Senate committees and everything I could find from UNMOVIC (the UN body that was supposed to be monitoring Iraqs WMD) and whatever the intelligence agency would release for review. I won't argue with you about the existance of WMD "stockpiles" in Iraq today. Certainly, there has been limited reports on the subject. But I will state this simply, I don't believe the President lied or purposefully misled us into this war.

If you read the UNMOVIC papers, even the last report made in May of this year was still vague. There is this and that information, but they feel that they could not make a definitive report because there is still too much missing information. Intelligence agencies around the world agreed with them, right or wrong.

As a person that must make decisions everyday that effects people's lives, I understand about taking ten years worth of information and having to make a decision. And, I'm afraid, when I look at that coupled with the 10 years of "on again off again" contacts with Al Qaida (as tenuous as they maybe regarding 9/11), I would have made the same decision. This man was a threat. He was known to have WMD and he had contact with the people that attacked us on 9/11. Or the fact that we'd been flying missions over Iraq for nearly twelve years. Our planes targeted by them regularly. He regularly threw out the inspectors.

It seemed very clear to me and still does today. There are risks involved in doing nothing just as there are risks involved in doing something. Being someone that has never really been a "do nothing" person, I had to support and I still support going to this war.

Hindsight is 20/20. I know, old cliche, but there it is. One thing that strikes me today is how many people (Democrats included) supported the war and were on TV supporting the need to go to war (including the right honorable Mr. Kerry) having seen the same information and then, later, when we had boots on the ground and it became apparent that these "stock piles" were not forthcoming, how fast these same folks tried to distance themselves from their earlier support. Distance themselves after we had already gone in. While we are still there.

Now they claim that, yeah, they supported the war, but, you know, they tried to warn people or, you know, the President misled them. We're talking about people that we elected to represent us. They are supposed to know. When they came on TV and told me that we needed to do this, I expected that they did their jobs and knew what had to be done. Certainly, I was not party to the intel committees.

Looking at this now, I can come to these conclusions: these folks were either extremely gullible and the President is an evil genius for being able to dupe so many of them into voting for this action or they are as completely incompetant as they claim the President to be. In either case, I'm afraid it does not inspire me to vote for them.

And all the things I said the Democrats said during the last three years, they are still saying it. Saying it while we are at war.

Peg, you said that "patriotism" does not belong to one party. That it is our "patriotic duty" to protest our government. I will not deny anyone the right to have free speech. But, I find it a little ironic. If I were to practice a little psuedo psychology, I would have to say that sounds like some sort of guilt complex whenever I hear someone trying to assert their patriotism by saying it is our "patriotic duty" to protest. Particularly, when the only people I hear talking about "unpatriotic" or even "un American" are the Democrats and the "protestors". In which case, let me make sure that I am clear here that I am not calling you "unpatriotic". To do so would be the height of hypocracy considering that one can be no more patriotic than to have a son who has served his country and well.

Does the fact that your son has served in Iraq give your ideas more credence than mine? On first instinct, I might have said yes. In a far away time, before I knew who Osama bin Laden was. But, today, it is not just about your son or Iraq, today it is about the future of me and my family. In which case, I must respectfully disagree. And having said that, I will make clear also my feelings about "protesting the war".

In this world of 24 hour news coverage, seven days a week that is beamed around the world, when any one of our enemies can turn on CNN, see that they have caused us to be divided and feel some sort of joy at our angst and their possibility of winning this conflict, I must say that I am extremely unhappy about the protests. If you have read any of my other posts, you will see me talking about "divide and conquer". I don't blame our division on Republicans or Democrats. I blame our division on the people that deserve the blame: the enemy. You see, "divide and conquer" is not just a tactic on a battle field with battalions moving against each other, groups being cut off from their support and supply, "divide and conquer" is also a political tactic.

To divide us from our allies, like Spain and the Phillipines, their attempts on South Korea and Japan and now Britain, with holding their hostage for last, is their very desire. Even more so, to see us divided amongst ourselves and see the possibility that we might weaken and withdraw, allowing them to do as they wish, in Iraq or any other country, must be the answer to their dreams.

Peg, I'm not just saying this because I heard somebody else say it. I'm saying it because, from my point of view, it would make me no less than ecstatic to see bin Laden and Zawahiri on the outs. To know that Zarqawi is persona non grata in Al Qaida. To find out that Iran will no longer allow them to cross their borders and that all the Pakistani government now hates their guts and will chase them from one end of the earth to the other. To know that all of the Saudi Arabians finally discover that they have been supporting a serial killer with their "charitable" donations and won't do it anymore.

Alas, those are just dreams. Because our enemy knows better than we that they must stick together in order to win and that we must fall apart to lose. And since I feel that way about them, divide and conquer, it is no hard leap for me to know that they feel the same. And we play into their hands oh so easily while at the same time we speak of "free speech" and "patriotic duty".

Now let us speak of "fear mongering and victory".

Peg, it was not a Republican nor a Democrat that has made me fear. It was a cloudless Tuesday morning when 19 men taught me to fear for my life for the first time in my life. To be sure, I have been in situations that I once considered dangerous. I have ridden across the United States on a motorcycle on highways filled with cars. If you want an adrenaline rush with a little "fear" thrown in, you couldn't find a better example. I have flown in little tin pot planes in thunderstorms with lightening striking around me and the plane shaking and rattling, dropping 100 ft or so in the turbulence. That has made me afraid.

But nothing made me more afraid than to wake up one morning, prepare for work and turn on my TV to see airplanes dropping out of the sky and thousands of people dead and missing. Peg, I fly for a living. I mean, I must fly just about every other week for my job. It can't be helped. For weeks after I had to get on a plane and look at who was boarding with me. Watch where they sit. Watch what they do. I had to think about what I would do if somebody tried to take over the plane. I had to pray that I would be ready to act like the people on flight 93, be prepared to sacrifice my life in order that the plane not make it where ever these possible high jackers were wanting to go. And just maybe, my life would save hundreds or thousands of others.

Does this sound melodramatic? In my world, this is a reality that I might have to face some day. Not a story line in a book or a movie. I might get on a plane and never come back. Of course, there are those that will remind me that I have just as much chance getting hit by a bus, but, since I don't like either of those possibilities I prefer to be a afraid and ready to act than to be just another victim.

What else makes me afraid? I watch the TV and I see trains blown up, discos, embassies, schools with small children, car bombs and beheadings.

Peg, I don't need President Bush to tell me that I should be afraid. I have only to look, to hear, to read and know but for the grace of God go I. It is that simple.

And the most fearful thing is the future. Peg, this enemy is not just some man named Osama bin Laden and a few of his lieutenants. They have many men willing to die in order to kill us. However we feel about starting this war in Iraq, it is the simple fact that the enemy is there now and we are confronting them head on with our military and, hopefully, destroying any number of their minions, our would be killers. Not to say that we won't be attacked, because I don't feel that we are "safe" as in "never to be attacked again". I only feel "safer" because the enemy has chosen to attack our military which is quite capable of defending itself as opposed to a two year old on an airplane taking their first trip with their grandmother.

I wrote this on July 29, 2004:

I read the declaration and understood the nature of our enemy. His hatred. His total commitment to our destruction. That was when I realized that we must be just as committed to their destruction. We cannot take half measures. We cannot treat for peace. Negotiate a cease fire. The enemy does not ask that of us. They ask for our total submission or our total destruction.

I posted that one other time on my blog. A commenter left a message. Something like: Your sick! That is just sick! My first thoughts weren't anger. They were surprise and then pity. Because in their paragraph of spewing, I recognized a small part of me. Fear. Fear that, just by saying it, I am committing myself to something terrible. Something that cannot be simply rectified with a few bullets. A few well placed words. Fear that I must recognize this to be as the President said; long and brutal war where we should expect to see people die. No quick wins like Gulf War I; Panama; Grenada.

Peg, if I may be so bold as to make an assumption, I believe that the fear for our future is what we share, even though you accuse the President (I assume that's who you meant) of "fearmongering", it is not he that makes us afraid. It is "them" and "us". They make us afraid because we don't know if we are doing the right thing. If this war is going to turn out good or bad. If it will have the desired consequences or if it will be just the beginning of a long, dark time. A time when we will see more people die. When our fathers, brothers, sons, sisters, mothers and daughters in uniform might pay the price for this thing that we have wrought. We are two sides of the same coin. You not supporting this war and fearing for your son's life should he return to Iraq and wondering if this thing has actually made us less safe, and me, supporting the war and knowing even as I write this that my support means that your son may fight again and be wounded or even, God forbid, killed because of my decision.

Certainly, there are some who would say, "Kat, it's not YOUR decision, you take too much on yourself or display arrogance when you proclaim it such." But it is. It's my decision because I support this action and I will vote to keep this action. In saying that, I, like many around me that support this action, must be ready to take that responsibility in the same way that we demand the President to do so. If we cannot accept that responsibility, we have no business supporting this war.

And, Peg, when I say I must accept responsibility for the possibility that my support might mean our soldiers will die, I don't speak only of soldiers I don't know or even your son. I speak of my own brother who serves today. And that, Peg, is probably the most fearsome similarity and responsibility that we have. People that we know and love might pay a very high price for this thing that we do.

But there, I think, our similarities end. Where as your son does not agree with this war and only sees it as his duty because he is in the service and it is his job to fulfil the policy of the United States, I have the comfort of knowing that my brother feels that this is a necessity, that he is doing the right thing and would have it no other way. That is little comfort should word come that he is a casualty of this war, but it is more than having no comfort and wondering what it is all for.

Now, having spoke of fears, I want to speak of victory. How will we measure it? How will we know this war has ended? What if it goes on and on?

On my office wall is a flag. It is folded neatly in a triangle and hanging in a shadow box. It covered the casket of a man I once knew. He didn't die in battle, but he served his country. He died an old man in his home. He told me once of a war far away, long before I was born. It was a long and hard war. Many men died. He saw things he never spoke of and some things he talked about. He spoke of Pearl Harbor and having to wait another year before he could enlist because he was too young. He spoke of the adventures and the hardships. Of seeing men die when he was barely a man himself. It was the year before he died that he told me some stories about his time in the Pacific. I couldn't take them all in. You know, I was young and didn't understand it.

He said there were times when he thought the war would never end. But it did. When he spoke we had the luxury of knowing that we had won. Victory in Japan. Hundreds of thousands of men died in order to give the world peace. For a while at least. But, he was just one man on a ship in the Pacific. He could only tell me what he saw and did. I read many books on the subject because I wanted to know him more and try to understand. The story goes, there were hard times. Battles that we lost. Men who died for a patch of ground that was oft times retaken by the enemy. But eventually, they were able to move forward and conquer the enemy. Unconditional surrender.

I said that this is not our father's war. It's not Vietnam no matter how many times someone says it. It's not World War II. It's not Gulf War I. This is our war. We could pull our troops from Iraq tomorrow and let it all go to hell and the war would not be over. Instead, we would be sitting here, waiting and wondering. Who was the enemy? Where is he? What does he plan?

Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, "We have nothing to Fear, but Fear itself." That's the truth. We can pretend that, had we not gone into Iraq, or, if we just left now, we could turn this thing around. Stop this war. It won't stop no matter how much we wish it. It was declared years ago the first time a young Arab man screamed "Allahu Akbar" and blew himself up or killed some innocent person that was just minding their own business.

So, I took my fear and I put it away. I only take it out once in awhile to show you that I am not a robot that is just saying some words because I heard it on TV. Parroting the latest talking points of one candidate or another. I don't need anyone to tell me what I should fear. It is plain as day. But, I will refuse to allow that fear to guide my decisions. It is not fear that makes me suppor this war. It is knowledge that I have only two choices: to sit here and do nothing and be eternally afraid of the next thing, or to insist that we move forward, push this thing to the enemy and make sure that the "next thing" is very, very hard to do when the enemy's last vision is a man or woman with an M16 and an American flag on their shoulder and not some scared grandmother saying the Lords prayer with her granddaughter as the plane swoops in for the kill.

There is no fear, but the fear that keeps us sitting still in the dark, praying that the bad men won't find us. It is best if we turn on the light and go forward into this battle, lest we wake to find we have lost already.

It is "Victory in Iraq" or nothing. I'll take victory if you don't mind.


6 comments:

Paul G. said...

Kat,

Over on mobyrebuttal.blogspot.com you took a slap at the Vietnam Veterans, here you take a slap at the Iraq Veterans. Here you dismiss a brave Veteran, his own personal experience, and the validity of his mothers feelings because they do not coincide with your illusions of a glorious war.

Contrary to your assertions our soldiers and generals did not lose Vietnam, politicians did.
Wrong war wrong plan, wrong wrong wrong.
You read over thirty books and you couldn't find the answer, the answer is that it COULD NOT BE WON, the best that could have been hoped for was another truce like Korea.
The United States lacked the authority to militarily overthrow the forces of the north, and the means to enforce a victory if they had.

And that is the lesson of Vietnam as applied to Iraq.

At the end of Gulf One it was recognized that there were a list of reasons we should not continue into Baghdad.
The coalition mandate was to liberate Kuwait, beyond that the United States and coalition members that continued would no longer receive logistical, financial, or military support from the Arab State members or the Japanese.
Additionally it was understood that entering Baghdad meant house to house fighting with an unclear outcome because Saddam s soldiers could be expected to remove uniforms and assume the identity of the civilian population.
Lastly in this incomplete list is that there was no one to replace Saddam with.
Iraq is not Vietnam, there is no preexisting opposition government to hand the country to, and any government we conjure to take the place of the Bathist Party is not going to be able to hold together the diverse and hostile groups that Saddam kept under control with an iron boot.
On the other side what should or could have been done is now beyond change and we cannot walk away from Iraq as we did Vietnam and the Soviets did Afganistan.
It is the "Iraq Situation" now, not the Iraq War, the old government is gone, without a proper armistice or surrender to define the peace.
Iraqs neighbors and other Arab countries are vehemently opposed a partitioned Iraq solution and guarantee its failure.
The remaining solution is a long term occupation of probably no less that 15 years with a slow transition of real power, and whatever forces and persons available from outside Iraq being the target of persistent attack.
Is the Japan model workable in Iraq?
Probably not, as Iraq is not the isolated island of Japan.
Iraq will continue to draw guerrilla fighters from Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen, you can call them terrorists if you wish but it was a problem that did not exist in Japan or Germany.
Where do we go from here?
Back to where we should have started from, a united true international force that shows that opposition is not opposition to the United States, but opposition to the entire civilized world.
President Bush was back at the United Nations Tuesday cowboy hat in hand making a defiant demand for help, it failed, the members of the U.N. have seen this horse trader before.
It's Americas problem to solve.
The horse we were on, wandered out of the stream and into the rapids.
We need to change horses before we find ourselves going over the falls.

I expect that you will make personal attacks on me, as you did the last time I posted here, stuffing words in my mouth and attributes that had nothing to do with what I said.
Debate by slander, you have truly found the party of your calling.

Kat said...

To my friend Paul,

I respectfully disagree with you that I took another "slap" at anyone, much less this lady and her son and much less the Vietnam Vets you claim I took a "slap" at over at mobyrebuttal.com.

I'm going to post that commentary over here and ask you to explain which section I wrote that "blames the vietnam soldiers" for losing the war.

before I do so, let me tell you that I respectfully disagree with Peg's assessment of the war, why we went there and what the outcome will be. As everyone is so insistant on free speech, I feel very strongly that I do not have to hold my tongue about how I feel about Iraq just because the person posting their feelings on the subject has a son that served.

For every opinion of negativity posted on the net, I can post as many letters from soldiers who would disagree with Peg's son's assessment.

But, that is not the purpose of my posting her comment and making my own comments. The purpose was to have this very discussion and show that we do not have to throw "bombs" to have a proper discourse on this subject. To show that we can "respectfully disagree".

And might I add, supporting this war hardly makes it "glorious" in my mind. But I do refuse to go around acting like we are going to lose because things don't always go the way I would like it to. Like you've said, I firmly believe that we have no option but to win or be "victorious" (the word I used in reference to the WWII point of the discussion, not as in "glorifying" war) unless we want to see the very thing we were hoping to prevent: an ME state taken over by the radical Islamists who then spread their little hate ideology around the region and abroad because they now have oil as their unrestricted revenue resource.

But, Paul, I don't have to agree with Peg or anyone else that we were "misled", "lied to" in an "illegal war". And I certainly don't have to agree with the "fearmongering" point either. There is fear among us and it's mostly about the future. Neither party has to drive it.

And, in regards to having found the correct party (ie, slander) it's an interesting thing you do there with your own "pre-emptive" attack. I also find it interesting how a certain party has a tendency to attack everyone and then claim some sort of mal feasance when it is returned in kind.

Having said that, here is my comment from mobyrebuttal.com. Pick out where I take a "slap" at Viet Nam veterans or claim that they were responsible for losing the war:

Ok...here I am...sick to death of Vietnam. I was barely a baby in diapers when this war was going on. I've had to read about 30 books just to get a general idea of what really happened. I didn't even rely on school books because I immediately thought our history books was missing something (just like the revolution, civil war and every war after that).

I want to give a news flash to some folks...This aint' your Daddy's war (no offense BandM). This is our war. This is us taking a stand right now. We are in it, for better or worse, and it is only the foolish that believe we can avoid it or could change paths. bullshit about hegemony, or halliburton, or oil, or any other meme is just that..bullshit!

I support this war and I don't get a paycheck from halliburton, my gas prices continue to go up and I certainly don't plan on voting to keep our guys in some country for the next 50 freaking years if they aren't needed for "imperialistic" purposes.

Having said that, I have my own reasons why I believed we should have gone there (Iraq) as well as Afghanistan. I am not going to start crying because it isn't going quite the way I thought it would. What kind of loser mentality is that?

In case nobody noticed, we aren't in Da Nang or cambodia or Laos or any other part of eastern asia fighting Viet Cong. We are in Iraq. The insurgents are three types of groups: Foriegn Mujihadeen that follow Al Qaida (damn good reason to be fighting them there); former Ba'athi (who would like nothing better than to get back to business as usual killing folks and building palaces); other Iraqis (namely Sadr and crew supported by Iran) backed up with criminals that are seeking their own power and have already put their boot down on the Iraqi people in the areas they roam.

Not one of these is good for the Iraqi people and certainly would not be anyone we would work with, given any circumstances.

You notice that not one of them has "vietcong" in their name. They don't even come close to the VCs abilities. They will be taken care of because we are far removed from the battles of Vietnam and I'm more than positive that every officer had to study the failures of Vietnam to insure they weren't repeated.

So...in the long run, what I don't need is some "I was in Vietnam" jack ass reliving his Vietnam experience in the White House.

Here's another idea...you think the guys that fought in Vietnam and are generals now have a clue about how to do it? Everyone thinks it's the administration or the Pentagon that is directing how to do the fighting.

Well, here's another news flash for you...they found out in Vietnam, going in and wiping out whole villages just because somebody in there might be an enemy was not conducive to relations with the natives. You think maybe these guys figure it's not a good idea to go in firing in the village (falluja) until the villagers figure out that the enemy are the ones hurting them? why do you think we were able to clear out Najaf and have the people later protesting Sadr and praising the Americans?

If we'd gone in blazing early on, we would have had a whole hell of a lot more people picking up arms in the city against us and a hell of a lot more casualties. We can sustain. They cannot. This is the lesson of Vietnam.

Kerry's lesson in Vietnam? The US is an evil imperialistic country that needs to be reigned in. It commits atrocities against the natives. Everything can be solved with talk.

You want historical info and his time in the Senate to be his record? We want to compare Vietnam? fine...the guy negotiated with the North Vietnamese Communists and then returned to washington to stand on the steps of the Capitol and demand that his country, our country, take all of these points and surrender; communists took control and guess what happened to the Vietnamese?; the guy negotiated with communist backed Ortega. Ortega took power and guess what happened to the Nicaraguans? He voted against nuclear proliferation in the 80's insisting that we should just negotiate with the USSR (want to talk about the millions that aren't alive in the USSR to talk about it?) thank God nobody listened; He voted against throwing Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991...He voted for Afghanistan because he didn't have a choice if he ever wanted to be elected again. He hedged his vote for Iraq 2002.

Why did he do these things? Because he believes that the US uses it's power as an evil force to enforce it's will on the world. He says it in his book the New Soldier, His biography, etc.."the lessons of Vietnam".

He's saying it now.

yes...he will finish Iraq because he has no choice, but his idea about a secure and safe Iraq doesn't necessarily mean it will end in a democracy or even be friendly to the US. And when he was done, that would be it. No more moving against the enemy. Just waiting as they proliferated in Palestine, Syria, etc.

Back to status quo while we prayed we put things in place in the US to protect ourselves against infiltration and attack and we "talked" and "negotiated" away our advantage. And when we are and these guys are hiding in Syria, what will he do? Negotiate with Syria while the bad guys move to another area or Syria thumbs it's nose at us while we try to figure out our options (which, if it's like the clinton Administration, we will do nothing but MAYBE lob a missile at Syria to "let them know we're serious").

There can be no rest back here in the states while the enemy takes control of countries and populations. Based on his 20 years in politics, this is what we can expect.

*******************************************

Let's look at some of Kerry's comments through out his career bout Vietnam. Start with his 1971 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

"Senator, I will say this. I think that politically, historically, the one thing that people try to do, that society is structured on as a whole, is an attempt to satisfy their felt needs, and you can satisfy those needs with almost any kind of political structure, giving it one name or the other. In this name it is democratic; in other it is communism; in others it is benevolent dictatorship. As long as those needs are satisfied, that structure will exist"

Mr. Kerry Continues:

"Mr. Kerry: Well, Senator, this obviously is the most difficult question of all, but I think that at this point the United States is not really in a position to consider the happiness of those people as pertains to the army in our withdrawal. We have to consider the happiness of the people as pertains to the life which they will be able to lead in the next few years."

In otherwords, who cares who is in charge as long as the country is "peaceful". Well, that's a bit of a problem since we have places like Syria and Iran that have been assisting the fighters going into Iraq. Based on this comment, we could assume that he will shore up who ever is strongest in Iraq (even if it's the complete return of the Ba'athi) and let them run the country as long as we were able to "stabilize" and leave. But of course, this is from '71, the senator was not yet a senator and had not grown politically.

There is his book, the New Soldier which the democrat party tried to suppress:

"Even among the New Soldiers, in our hatred for the war and our drive for change, there is a wide divergence on approaches to change, or, for that matter, on what causes the need for change...

But among all there is an intense and deep-rooted agreement that America has lost sight, hopefully only temporarily, of much that we knew as our greatness.

...We are aware also of all the traditional arguments -- that those in power have access to information, that America can do no wrong, that America has particular interests which it must safeguard, and so on. In reality, however, there is a big difference between these arguments and what happens to the people involved.

...Now, however, I will not go blindly because my government says that I must go. I will not go unless we can make real our promises of self-determination and justice at home. I will not go unless the threat is a real one and we all know it to be so. I will not go unless the people of this country decide for themselves that we must all of us go"

Any of this sound familiar? strike the word "Vietnam" and throw in the word "Iraq". Was withdrawal from Vietnam a 'win' or 'loss'?

Aug 9...Kerry at the grand canyon...

"My goal, my diplomacy, my statesmanship is to get our troops reduced in number and I believe if you do the statesmanship properly, I believe if you do the kind of alliance building that is available to us, that it's appropriate to have a goal of reducing the troops over that period of time," he said.

On that timetable, Kerry's aim would be to pull out a large number of the 138,000 U troops in Iraq in the first six months of his administration."

..."Kerry challenged Bush to answer some questions of his own -- why he rushed to war without a plan for the peace, why he used faulty intelligence, why he misled Americans about how he would go to war and why he had not brought other countries to the table."

Please note the "why he misled America". I know that is TWD's belief as well, but I am serious when I tell you I disagree with "misled". When the entire world is telling you that Saddam has something, UNMOVIC is hedging it's answers and even senator Kerry, allegedly a member of the senate intelligence committee, sees the same info and believes the same thing, there is no "misled", but it's awful convenient for people to claim so. Fits in with his belief that the US government is one big hegemonistic goliath, bent on taking over the world using whatever means necessary.

How about his little 1985 trip to Nicaragua and what he said about it?(this is from his friendly propaganda news paper, the Boston Globe)

"Within weeks of taking office in 1985, he was off to Nicaragua, accompanied by reporters on a 36-hour, self-appointed fact-finding mission with another freshman, Democratic Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa. Congressional Democrats had accused the White House of exaggerating the communist threat posed by the Sandinista regime. So the two senators were publicly castigated when -- just days after meeting with Daniel Ortega and other leaders of the regime -- the Sandinistas climbed aboard a plane to Moscow to cement their Soviet ties."

News Max looks at it differently:

"Nonetheless, Kerry raced back to Washington with the document he touted as a “peace proposal.” Indeed, Ortega promises a cease-fire, as long as the United States cut off all assistance, including humanitarian aid, to the anti-communist forces and their families.

“Here,” Kerry boldly pronounced to the Senate, “is a guarantee of the security interest of the United States.”

by the way...that would be time number two that Mr. Kerry went with out authorization from the state department or the President on a "fact finding mission" and came back with a peace treaty (North Vietnamese in Paris and now D. Ortega, Nicaragua). What did Kerry have to say about it?

"Kerry worried that a repeat of Vietnam -- with a White House misleading the public -- was in the making. "A central part of my campaign had been the notion that I would bring to the Senate the experience of the Vietnam period, which cautioned me against the kind of illegal activities we were hearing about, and the things that were going on," Kerry recalls. "Literally, I did do an ad hoc investigation."(boston globe)

Do you see a little pattern here? Let's look at his comments going into the second term...(from the globe)

"Vietnam is a lesson," Kerry says. "It is history to me. It can guide me, but it doesn't run me. You have to move on and I moved on long ago. But the lessons are valuable. I love the lessons."

shall I look up his comments on nuclear proliferation or why he vetoed gulf war I or Bosnia (against his own party I might add)?

This is Mr. Kerry. You can tell me that my analysis is flawed, but these are his own words. I didn't make them up.

http://mobyrebuttal.blogspot.com/2004/09/return-to-dirty-south.html#comments

Pick it out and then we can discuss. I realize that you want to continue this discussion from ala's place since you practically cut and pasted your comments from there to here. so, let's go...or bring it on..or whatever the current catch phrase is. ;)

Paul G. said...

I'm more than positive that every officer had to study the failures of Vietnam to insure they weren't repeated.

Here's another idea...you think the guys that fought in Vietnam and are generals now have a clue about how to do it?
This is your anti Vietnam Veteran rhetoric.
I'll cut you some slack on the phrase:
Well, here's another news flash for you...they found out in Vietnam, going in and wiping out whole villages just because somebody in there might be an enemy was not conducive to relations with the natives.Your implication that this was the normal way to do business in Vietnam.
It did happen, and was common enough to be known, but you can't use it on one side to chastise Kerry and then on the other to defend the differences in Iraq.

Your slap here for Iraq is quite sweet and short.
Does the fact that your son has served in Iraq give your ideas more credence than mine? On first instinct, I might have said yes. In a far away time, before I knew who Osama bin Laden was. But, today, it is not just about your son or Iraq, today it is about the future of me and my family. In which case, I must respectfully disagree. But you don't simply disagree respectfully, you go into an unrelated anti-anti-war protest rant that has no connection to pegs comment she does not say a single word about protest.

As for my preemptive defense against your attacks on me let me refer back to “This could be us”, where my initial post was a jab of - “OMG!
I always suspected that Oklahoma was a muslim breakaway state and now you've confirmed it.

I'm pulling my kids out of public school tomorrow, none of us are safe anywhere.
Later without further comment from me you felt that it was appropriate to pen -
I read a recent article from a prominent sociologists that talks about how terrorists are successful because they have learned to turn the blame from themselves and tell the victims that it is their fault or their government's fault they are victims and people like Paul fall for it.
and
I guess some one like Paul thinks, you know, this is ok, because they are "freedom fighters". Your “apology” later doesn't cut it. You co-opted my name without regard, and you have done it again here, to a far more serious degree with Peg. It's slander, a weak childish way to make a point at the expense of someone else's reputation.

Question for you Kat?

Have you taken even 5 minutes to consider why a so called pacifistic liberal would bother visiting so called fascist conservative Blogs?
It's not that we really believe we are going to change your minds, or convince you to come over to the kumbayah crowd.
The reason we visit is that another voice must be heard, so that in the future when and if someone asks “Why didn't anyone speak up?”, it can be said that someone did and that the choice was made to go one way rather than another.

Peg made a very valid point about disagreement that you've tried to gloss past by making characterizing it as protest.

So be it. Dissent is good, your “United Front” is not the American way, even in time of war.
At the time of the American Revolution 30% of the population wanted to remain with England, even after the war the number remained high. They argued for reconciliation and through debate gave the moral strength required to the arguments for independence.

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

Paul, I understand the spirit of what you mean by "dissent is good". It is the sharpening stone of the sword of Democracy. Without the challenge presented by dissent, the prevailing party has no impetus for proving its bona fides, its morality, and its logic for making decisions. And to that extent, not only is dissent "good", polarization and divisive and partisan politics are SIMILARLY good, because we need distinctions between the various agendas that are vying for our attention at the voting booth. We now have them.

We have the choice between a Kerry administration which promises to govern by recrimination, flip-flops, and pie-in-the-sky fantasies of France and Germany swooping in to save our asses in Iraq; OR a Bush administration which promises continued hard work in the arduous task before us, sweating the needed sweat; bleeding the necessary blood; and making the expedient and common sense decisions that need to be made in spite of the insipid and hysterical opposition of the most disgusting elements of our population.

We GET it.

No, you're not "anti-American"; and no, we're not "Fascists". But you ARE the wrong side of the argument, and we are in the RIGHT. Start liking it.

Paul G. said...

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files,

Can I wipe the poop off my nose now?
I/WE are not dogs you train by rubbing our noses in dodo.
I/WE are Americans with right and opinions, some right, some wrong, all valid.
If you choose to see the world through a monochromatic filter fine but do not insist that the rest of us view it that way. You will not always be right, and I will not always be wrong, and you need to get used to that.

Kat said...

Paul,

The sad part is, when I offered the apology, I meant it, because I did feel that I had mis read your comments and should not have said that. Your refusal to accept that apology is your issue, not mine. But, I would add here that, for all the things you are saying, it points to a serious issue of why we don't have polite discourse on these subjects. I was willing to give and you are not. Which is usually what forces people back to their original position. Interesting who you blame for that.

Let's continue with the discussion from Mobysrebuttal.com:

P: Here's another idea...you think the guys that fought in Vietnam and are generals now have a clue about how to do it? This is your anti Vietnam Veteran rhetoric.
I'll cut you some slack on the phrase:

K: Well, thanks, but cutting slack and anti-Vietnam are neither required nor warranted. You chose to take it that way. The discussion was about "tactics". As in the tactics we use against guerilla warfare that we surely learned some lessons from Vietnam about what works and what doesn't. As simple as that. No anti anything.

P:Well, here's another news flash for you...they found out in Vietnam, going in and wiping out whole villages just because somebody in there might be an enemy was not conducive to relations with the natives.Your implication that this was the normal way to do business in Vietnam.
It did happen, and was common enough to be known, but you can't use it on one side to chastise Kerry and then on the other to defend the differences in Iraq

K: Once again Paul, we are not on the same wave length. My fault since I didn't make it plain there. I was certainly not talking about soldiers marching in and lining up the villagers to massacre them, or rape them, or cut off ears, because I don't think that happened on a regular basis. That I will hold against MR. Kerry. In regards to total destruction of villages, I do believe that happened, either by setting the villages on fire or threw air power. I have relatives who fought in Vietnam and they did tell me that they had used a sort of "collective punishment" tactic when they found arms caches and VC tunnels in the village or even VC themselves. And this is definitely a tactic that did not work in the guerilla fighting and won't work in Iraq.

P:“Does the fact that your son has served in Iraq give your ideas more credence than mine? On first instinct, I might have said yes. In a far away time, before I knew who Osama bin Laden was. But, today, it is not just about your son or Iraq, today it is about the future of me and my family. In which case, I must respectfully disagree. But you don't simply disagree respectfully, you go into an unrelated anti-anti-war protest rant that has no connection to pegs comment she does not say a single word about protest.

K: Paul, here, I must respectfully disagree. You did not read all of Peg's message in which she says "Disagreement with our government is our perogative, no OUR DUTY, as Americans. Patriotism is not determined by political party." Which I took to mean protest as well. Maybe Peg will explain to me that she just meant "disagree" verbally, but I did take it to mean "all forms" of disagreement. Of course, my views might have been colored by the recent "peace rally" for fallen soldiers where the people that "disagree" took it out on an attending family whose son had died and who had not realized what the rally was about. Either way, saying I don't agree with protestors or with her son does not constitute a "slap". I think I thanked her and her son several times for doing his duty and serving our country, however he felt about it. You take it as you wish.

P:So be it. Dissent is good, your “United Front” is not the American way, even in time of war.
At the time of the American Revolution 30% of the population wanted to remain with England, even after the war the number remained high. They argued for reconciliation and through debate gave the moral strength required to the arguments for independence.

K: And Paul, that is exactly why I posted her comment at the top. It was not to label Peg a "protestor" although her comment did give me the jumping off point of why I am concerned about the protests and the air time that they get. It was not to make light of her feelings or her sons service. Simply to show the other side of the argument and what my position is to it. You will note that I did not call anyone a "pacifist liberal", but simply said that I disagree. And I did it so that people like you and Ciggy would come over and make your own comments.

So that we might have some discourse on the subject and see that there are some similarities, such as fear of the future and fear for our loved ones, however we or they feel about their service or this war and why each side feels that either the war should go on or not be fought or somewhere in between.

And, you have made my point for me as well, because here, I can agree with you:

P: Lastly in this incomplete list is that there was no one to replace Saddam with.
Iraq is not Vietnam, there is no preexisting opposition government to hand the country to, and any government we conjure to take the place of the Bathist Party is not going to be able to hold together the diverse and hostile groups that Saddam kept under control with an iron boot.
On the other side what should or could have been done is now beyond change and we cannot walk away from Iraq as we did Vietnam and the Soviets did Afganistan.

K: Absolutely, there is no going back, however we feel about it. (...)

Iraqs neighbors and other Arab countries are vehemently opposed a partitioned Iraq solution and guarantee its failure.
The remaining solution is a long term occupation of probably no less that 15 years with a slow transition of real power, and whatever forces and persons available from outside Iraq being the target of persistent attack.
Is the Japan model workable in Iraq?
Probably not, as Iraq is not the isolated island of Japan.
Iraq will continue to draw guerrilla fighters from Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen, you can call them terrorists if you wish but it was a problem that did not exist in Japan or Germany.
Where do we go from here?
Back to where we should have started from, a united true international force that shows that opposition is not opposition to the United States, but opposition to the entire civilized world.

K: Everything is valid including the last part. Where I think we have issues is how the world sees the "approach" to clearing this issue and whether other folks see it as "them" against the "civilized world". Because I don't think that some of the countries really see it that way. Therein lies the problem. I do believe that this is more than "war" as in battlefields. I believe that this first action had to be taken because it gives us direct contact with the enemy and the ability to wipe out as many potential "guerillas" as possible and diminish their capacity. But I don't see us going into Saudi Arabia or Iran or Syria any time soon unless there is some direct action on their part. For instance, if we capture a platoon or brigade on this side of the Iraqi border purposefully interacting with and supporting the guerrillas. That might stir the pot.

I believe really that France and Germany are going to insist on staying out of Iraq, whoever is President, for the simple reason that it gives them a point to work from with these other nations. We are the hammer and they are the pen. Plenty of historical references for that type of action and why, I believe, we still call them "allies" however much they might say about our actions or have done some things contrary to our "interests".

We have allowed them to become the mediators (that's what they wanted), but we are the "change agents". If we had not pushed, we would not be having any discussions about "reform" in the ME. They would still be the palid "discussions" within some place like Saudi Arabia without any real discourse or action.

And, I believe we are going to be there for a long time for the same reason. We will be the thorn in their side that will not leave until some real actions take place. We will also be the deterrent.

Eventually, I think we will see a time within a year or so where we do pull back to bases within Iraq and leave the day to day actions to them with only small force action along with ING against guerrillas that come into the country. The troops will be the face of America in direct confrontation (as they are now) with the enemy, giving the enemy a place to focus largely away from the homeland, while we put pressure to change the political, social and economical features of the current ME.

Just my take on the situation.