Why Do Republicans Hate Our Troops?
It's no surprise that the Republicans in congress are expressing their disdain for even DEBATING the troop surge. This crowd has always had an extreme distaste for functioning democracy. But I'm quite amazed at the low opinion they seem to have of our men and women in uniform. Apparently, they believe our soldiers are largely (a) stupid, and (b) pussies.
This whole idea that passing the non-binding resolution against the surge, or even debating it, will demoralize the troops rests on two suppositions. One is that the soldiers are too stupid to understand the difference between their civilian leadership doing their job and debating the merits of various strategies in Iraq, and abandoning the troops in their mission. The other supposition is that these guys are such delicate, shrinking violets that the mere thought of dissent with the commander-in-chief will cause them to wilt and whimper, to give up on their mission, and to have their feelings hurt. Seems to me these guys must be pretty tough--they made it through basic training and all--but according to the Republican leadership, they are the most sensitive girly-men you've ever met.
There's a lot of "think about how the soldier in the field feels about hearing this debate." I imagine the soldier in the field is immediately concerned with people trying to kill him, is trying to figure out what exactly the goal is that he's supposed to be accomplishing, and is feeling abandoned by his country. He's probably quite encouraged to hear that someone is working to get him THE FUCK OUT OF THIS HELL HOLE WHILE I STILL HAVE BOTH MY ARMS.
Not that I'm really that excited about the non-binding resolution, but at least it's something. From the Democrats' point of view, the best outcome is probably that we stay in Iraq until 2008, while they appear to be fighting to get us out. It's kinda like the old school yard tactic, when someone tries to start a fight with you, and you get behind your buddy and get him to "hold you back" from kicking the guy's ass. You don't want to fight, but you don't want to look like you don't want to fight. Because whether we stay in Iraq or leave, the result will very likely be the same--a complete breakdown of the country into tribal warfare and ethnic cleansing if we're lucky, a breakdown of the entire middle east into a Sunni-Shiite conflict if we're not. If we stay, it gets blamed on Bush. If we pull out, it gets blamed on the Democrats. So the Dems would rather wait it out, letting another thousand or so Americans die for nothing, for their long-term advantage. It even works to the advantage of anti-war candidates like Edwards, who can say he tried to take more serious action to end the war, but was blocked at every turn by Hillary.
And seriously, if I believed that sending the additional 21,000 troops would make a difference, I would support it. I just don't see any evidence that it will. I'm not sure 100,000 troops would make much difference, but at least it would be a serious effort. Even Bush doesn't believe it. If you listen to the speech where he proposed the surge, he's clearly setting this up as "well, we did our best, but the Iraqis just didn't step up," or at best hoping to calm things down for just long enough to declare victory and get out when it's more politically acceptable for him.
And now it's Iran. Bush is looking to cover up the biggest military mistake that didn't involve invading Russia in history by making an even bigger mistake. A war with Iran would be incalculably dangerous.
Now, I don't doubt that parties in Iran, possibly even in the Iranian government, are supplying weapons to terrorists and insurgents and militias in Iraq. And if we did some digging, we could probably discover that the same is true of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait. But Iran also has the most vital pro-democracy movement in the middle east within it's borders. They (the pro-democracy forces in Iran, not the Iranian government or religious leadership) should be our biggest allies in the Muslim world. But if the U.S. attacks their country, whose side will they choose? We will be herding them all into radical Islamism. Bush needs to be stopped NOW.
This whole idea that passing the non-binding resolution against the surge, or even debating it, will demoralize the troops rests on two suppositions. One is that the soldiers are too stupid to understand the difference between their civilian leadership doing their job and debating the merits of various strategies in Iraq, and abandoning the troops in their mission. The other supposition is that these guys are such delicate, shrinking violets that the mere thought of dissent with the commander-in-chief will cause them to wilt and whimper, to give up on their mission, and to have their feelings hurt. Seems to me these guys must be pretty tough--they made it through basic training and all--but according to the Republican leadership, they are the most sensitive girly-men you've ever met.
There's a lot of "think about how the soldier in the field feels about hearing this debate." I imagine the soldier in the field is immediately concerned with people trying to kill him, is trying to figure out what exactly the goal is that he's supposed to be accomplishing, and is feeling abandoned by his country. He's probably quite encouraged to hear that someone is working to get him THE FUCK OUT OF THIS HELL HOLE WHILE I STILL HAVE BOTH MY ARMS.
Not that I'm really that excited about the non-binding resolution, but at least it's something. From the Democrats' point of view, the best outcome is probably that we stay in Iraq until 2008, while they appear to be fighting to get us out. It's kinda like the old school yard tactic, when someone tries to start a fight with you, and you get behind your buddy and get him to "hold you back" from kicking the guy's ass. You don't want to fight, but you don't want to look like you don't want to fight. Because whether we stay in Iraq or leave, the result will very likely be the same--a complete breakdown of the country into tribal warfare and ethnic cleansing if we're lucky, a breakdown of the entire middle east into a Sunni-Shiite conflict if we're not. If we stay, it gets blamed on Bush. If we pull out, it gets blamed on the Democrats. So the Dems would rather wait it out, letting another thousand or so Americans die for nothing, for their long-term advantage. It even works to the advantage of anti-war candidates like Edwards, who can say he tried to take more serious action to end the war, but was blocked at every turn by Hillary.
And seriously, if I believed that sending the additional 21,000 troops would make a difference, I would support it. I just don't see any evidence that it will. I'm not sure 100,000 troops would make much difference, but at least it would be a serious effort. Even Bush doesn't believe it. If you listen to the speech where he proposed the surge, he's clearly setting this up as "well, we did our best, but the Iraqis just didn't step up," or at best hoping to calm things down for just long enough to declare victory and get out when it's more politically acceptable for him.
And now it's Iran. Bush is looking to cover up the biggest military mistake that didn't involve invading Russia in history by making an even bigger mistake. A war with Iran would be incalculably dangerous.
Now, I don't doubt that parties in Iran, possibly even in the Iranian government, are supplying weapons to terrorists and insurgents and militias in Iraq. And if we did some digging, we could probably discover that the same is true of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait. But Iran also has the most vital pro-democracy movement in the middle east within it's borders. They (the pro-democracy forces in Iran, not the Iranian government or religious leadership) should be our biggest allies in the Muslim world. But if the U.S. attacks their country, whose side will they choose? We will be herding them all into radical Islamism. Bush needs to be stopped NOW.
posted by Chris Oliver at 9:12 AM
5 Comments:
Are you serious? You say that you support our troops and yet you agree with the democrats plans to pull the rug out from underneath them? That is the most ass-backwards support philosophy that I have ever heard...but we have come to expect this from democrats. Bush isin't the problem...it's the dumb ass democrats that keep progress from getting made. if you want to support our troops try giving them the weapons and tools that they need to get the job done and not undermining what they have accomplished.
Semper Fi. OOPS sorry...you probably have no idea what that means or what that means to our troops.
First of all, the Republicans have had complete control of the government throughout the 4 years of this war. If you think the troops are ill-equipped, don't blame the party that has had partial control for about a month now.
You know what your problem is? You don't see the troops as people. You see them as machines manufactured expressly for the purpose of killing and dying. That's what allows you to make illogical statements like saying it's "ass-backwards" to support the troops by trying to keep them alive. It's the equivalent of saying vegetarians don't support the cows because they are preventing them from fulfilling their purpose of becoming tasty hamburgers. So maybe I don't support the troops. Maybe I support the people who happen to be in the armed forces.
Now why don't you regail me with stories of your military experience so that I may better understand the meaning of Semper Fi.
pwn3d.
Isn't Semper Fi something to do with DOOM?
anonymous said...
Yeah.
Post a Comment
<< Home