Sounds like a good idea to me. Maybe we can provide back-up to Israel or in the case of Syria, get them in a pincer movement. It would also help stabilize Iraq by stopping terrorists and their support coming in through Syria and Iran.

If the liberal Democrats had backed President Bush in Iraq and not acted like their usual wave the "white and yellow flag", "tuck tail and run" selves, Syria and Iran probably would not be so bold right now. As it is, Iran and Syria aren't worried. They figure the Democrats will stop any action against them.

AAR

*Sighs*

I'm not sure how we can stop any Iran plan at this point. I believe they've already got all they need, now it's just a matter of putting it together and deploying it. This could all just be a warm up to an actual nuclear attack. They're just ramping things up so that they can say, "they were going to nuke us first!"

I hope this can be prevented but hope doesn't count for too much on its own.

They figure the Democrats will stop any action against them.

I couldn't agree with you more, Air America Radio...

USAFSpook(Ret),

Is that you keefer?

AAR

Frank (R-SC) Wright/USAFSpook(Ret)/keefer,

I clicked your typekey box and it turned from blue to purple. Retired Spook knows you. It's okay, keefer. I'm not mad or anything. It was just a little weird. Come back to B4B, keefer.
:)

"We need to bite the bullet and get it done, right now. That will require military action against both Iran and Syria, and it will require it soon."-Mark Noonan

I agree, Mark. I think Israel and the US should destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, now. Syria needs to be dealt with simultaneously. Your ideas for doing that seem like good ones. God be with us all!

If, by "winding down" you mean intensifying, then yeah, I guess it is winding down.

I am amazed at the lack of discernable liberal opinion in the recent post strings on Israel. Do you people really have to wait for the official party line or for the President to take action (so you can oppose it) to form an opinion? I mean, what do you libbies think we should do? Support the Israelis? Make them stop? Support the Arabs? Do nothing? Attack Syria and/or Iran ourselves?

What if Israel launches air raids against Iran? They would have to fly over Turkey, or Iraq, or Saudi Arabia to do it. Should we shoot them down? What if Iran launches air raids or missiles against Israel? Same air space. Should we shoot their planes down?

It sure looks like you are afraid to take a position, because you might agree with some conservatives. It sure looks like you are waiting for the President to act, so you can oppose him no matter what.

The liberals are lost!!

They don't know what to do!!

Only cut n run!!

They are cowards, that's why they're not responding!!

Jeremiah

We don't respond because we tire of banging our heads into a wall. And, that wall is you.

Well 3more, take a trip to Dailykos and you will see some heads banging against walls. They are really ripping each other to shreds on the Israel threads. This is one issue they have problems with because some see the Palestinians as rightfully taking on their Israeli oppressors. Talk about flame wars!

3moreyears,

I hope so!

AAR

Kahn, kinda reminds me of the old Simon & Garfunkel song "The Sound of Silence". Kinda nice. TMY, take an aspirin.

So I shall assume by TMY's answer that the liberal response is that diplomacy works. Since they're always trying to "get it through the neocons thick skulls" that all it takes is talking to stop the fighting. Do correct me if I'm wrong here three, but that does seem to be the repeated message. That we caused all of this, that if we just talked and left it'd all calm down and be okay. So since nothing is being said and saying more would be "beating your head against the wall" then I can only assume that is the case.

The battle is not mine, said little David!!

Yet he won VICTORIOUS!!

With Jesus on our side the battle is already over, no matter how long it takes!!

Jeremiah

We need to give Iran a little taste of "nuclear diplomacy." Until we prove we are willing to drop a few atoms on SOMEBODY, we will have no credibility in that neighborhood. Now they think that anybody can run a successful urban guerrilla resistance against us; they don't fear us enough.

"As the battle for Iraq winds down (and in spite of leftwing attempts to make it otherwise, it is winding down)"

Stop being delusional, violence decreasing? What planet have you been on? The U.S. Ambassador to Iraq today said himself that secretarian violence has undeniably increased over the past month. Unless of course, you consider that today's death toll of "only" 6 Iraqi's, in comparison to the 140 that have been killed in the past 4 days, is the start of this mythical "winding down" you are talking about.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/13/world/middleeast/13cnd-iraq.html

So excuse me if I think its ridiculous for you to say that we could easily invade both Iran and Syria with our "battle tested" armed forces without creating similar mayhem in those countries as in Iraq.

I really like the gun ho attitude; while most people are trying to find a way to descalate this crisis from erupting into a bitter regional conflict, you want to embrace it. Let death and carnage rage in the Middle East! Its unaviodable so lets just get this over with and stop trying to prevent the outbreak of what could erupt into a war that engulfs the entire Middle East.

Of course, I wouldn't really call it a global war since all the other Western powers would watch in disgust as we abandoned all overtures of a diplomatic process. Watch as we would continue to waste lives, money, and respect in our bid to "democratize" the region. And please stop throwing around American troops as if they were toy soldiers, to be redeployed at ease, without taking into account the logistical problems involved.

Where are we going to get the mythical troops for this proposed assualt, from Iraq? Are we going to ABANDON the Iraqis to go fight Iran after the Republicans have been lauding democractics for their "cut-n-run" policy? So instead of just saying lets do this and lets do that becauase we are all big and bad, why don't you tell me HOW exactly you plan to carry out this grand Middle East take over of Iran and Syria?

As far as the liberal line? Of course defuse the situation diplomatically, in the short term. That's no solution to the larger problem, the REAL problem, which is not the holding of Isreali Prisoners by Hamas and Hezbollah. The problem is the indiscriminate targerting of civilians, by the Palestinians because thats quite frankly the only way they can attack Isreal and by the Isrealis because they find no qualms in dropping bombs on militants no matter their proximity to civilians. What the Isrealis need to do is change the hearts and minds of regular Palestinians, to cut down on the militants support base, rather then add fuel to the fire by racheting up the violence a notch.

Why is USAFSpook(Ret) posting under multiple identities? How do you do that??? Maybe he's not retired after all!

As I said in an earlier thread. Can we take out Syria yet? Please?

It will certainly be easier than Iran. And we could use a quick and decisive victory to rally the American people back to President Bush's side.

I wonder what he's planning. Pray for our President. God bless America and Israel!

And Amen, Jeremiah!

"As the battle for Iraq winds down (and in spite of leftwing attempts to make it otherwise, it is winding down)"

Stop being delusional, violence decreasing? What planet have you been on? The U.S. Ambassador to Iraq today said himself that secretarian violence has undeniably increased over the past month. Unless of course, you consider that today's death toll of "only" 6 Iraqi's, in comparison to the 140 that have been killed in the past 4 days, is the start of this mythical "winding down" you are talking about.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/13/world/middleeast/13cnd-iraq.html

So excuse me if I think its ridiculous for you to say that we could easily invade both Iran and Syria with our "battle tested" armed forces without creating similar mayhem in those countries as in Iraq.

I really like the gun ho attitude; while most people are trying to find a way to descalate this crisis from erupting into a bitter regional conflict, you want to embrace it. Let death and carnage rage in the Middle East! Its unaviodable so lets just get this over with and stop trying to prevent the outbreak of what could erupt into a war that engulfs the entire Middle East.

Of course, I wouldn't really call it a global war since all the other Western powers would watch in disgust as we abandoned all overtures of a diplomatic process. Watch as we would continue to waste lives, money, and respect in our bid to "democratize" the region. And please stop throwing around American troops as if they were toy soldiers, to be redeployed at ease, without taking into account the logistical problems involved.

Where are we going to get the mythical troops for this proposed assualt, from Iraq? Are we going to ABANDON the Iraqis to go fight Iran after the Republicans have been lauding democractics for their "cut-n-run" policy? So instead of just saying lets do this and lets do that becauase we are all big and bad, why don't you tell me HOW exactly you plan to carry out this grand Middle East take over of Iran and Syria?

As far as the liberal line? Of course defuse the situation diplomatically, in the short term. That's no solution to the larger problem, the REAL problem, which is not the holding of Isreali Prisoners by Hamas and Hezbollah. The problem is the indiscriminate targerting of civilians, by the Palestinians because thats quite frankly the only way they can attack Isreal and by the Isrealis because they find no qualms in dropping bombs on militants no matter their proximity to civilians. What the Isrealis need to do is change the hearts and minds of regular Palestinians, to cut down on the militants support base, rather then add fuel to the fire by racheting up the violence a notch.

It sure looks like you are waiting for the President to act, so you can oppose him no matter what.

~~~~~~
I agree with this statement.

We need to give Iran a little taste of "nuclear diplomacy."

Darby, now that's something we can all agree on. We like action, moonbats like words ("diplomacy"). Diplomacy with teeth. Reminds me of what a great American President once said, "Trust but verify."

A good hard slap to the mullahs and the other nations will follow Lybia's example. Syria might even consider turning over Saddam's WMDs.

Why is USAFSpook(Ret) posting under multiple identities? How do you do that??? Maybe he's not retired after all!

~~~~~~~~~~~
Sometimes people forget to sign in with their typead account, and have to use a new name to post.

I am usually AFwife or proudUSAFwife, depending on if I sign in or not.

Bob Arctor said Reminds me of what a great American President once said, "Trust but verify."

I say "trust but liquify."

Today Israel attacked Lebanon in what may mark the start of WWIII. Israel is also threatening Syria. If Israel attacks Syria, Iran said it will attack Israel. If that happens the U.S. will attack Iran from bases in Saudi Arabia. Between Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and Syria, you are talking about 50% of the oil reserves in the world.
China, Russia, India, and the U.S. want that oil. The U.S. is not prepared for a World War because Bush decimated our troops, military equipment, and military budget with his preemptive and unjustified war against Iraq.

Ed,

You really should read what I write, and then comment. Works better that way.

I made no comment on the number of people killed, or not killed, in Iraq on a particular day - I noted, correctly, that the American campaign to liberate Iraq is winding down...as the Iraqi forces grow ever larger and more effective, American troops have started to take a more backseat position...we're even turning one province completely over to Iraqi security. I'd prefer us not to have to move out major units for at least two or three more months, but war doesn't always allow you to do your preferred action. We could leave now, in a pinch, if we had to - provided, of course, that the leaving is going on to fight what has become a more immediately threatening situation - its the difference between "redeploying" to Okinawa (which would correctly be seen as an American surrender), and using our forces to take down the Syrian regime.

As far as the logistics of what I propose - blockade, air attacks on Iran, ground attacks on Syria - the logistical tail to get our forces in to Syria is only a little longer than the tail we've got in to Iraq right now (you do realise that Syria borders not just Iraq, but the most intractable province in Iraq, Anbar, right?). As for Iran - we've already got the ships in theater to clamp down a sufficient blockade (which would be designed to halt tanker traffic from Iran - you can't have a tanker slip through a blockade un-noticed; it'd be like trying to sneak an elephant out of the zoo) as well as sufficient air power, backed up by long range bombers from the US, to at least significantly degrade Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

We shall have to see, however, what course of action President Bush decides upon.

Christian,

Long time no see - but I see your absense didn't lead you to, well, actually learn anything.

Welcome back, all the same...

"The battle is not mine, said little David!!
Yet he won VICTORIOUS!!
With Jesus on our side the battle is already over, no matter how long it takes!!"

Funny, that's what the Nazis said, too. In fact, here is a fascinating quote:

"We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Passau, 27 October 1928, Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf"

I don't recall how things worked out for Hitler, as I was never a groupie of his. He was always a little too right-wing for my tastes. But surely he, too, will be victorious with Jesus on his side and all.

Oh, and if you do bomb Iran, please try to miss the 1.3 million Zoroastrians, Jews, Christians and Baha'i living there, ok? That'd really be a drag to just nuke 'em all, wouldn't it?

Congressive,

Still on your rather stupid "Hitler was a Christian" kick?

I find it rather amusing that the left stoutly asserts that Washington wasn't a Christian, but that Hitler was.

You are aware, aren't you, that Hitler fibbed from time to time in his public utterances? You know, all those proclamations of peaceful intentions and desire to get along with everyone? But the truth will out, as they say:

When National Socialism has ruled long enough, it will no longer be possible to conceive of a form of life different from ours. In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together. … No, it does not mean a war. The ideal solution would be to leave the religions to devour themselves, without persecutions. But in that case we must not replace the Church with something equivalent…The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. [Hitler's Table Talk, p. 6-7]

Ok Mark, Ok Jeremiah, let's throw out those religious platitudes now. Tell us again (and again and again) how Jesus is going to open a can 'o whoopass on those infidels. Smite. Spill blood. Maim. Grind and squash. Shock and awe.

So now the whole middle east is on fire. Your boy is doing a heck of a job. Put another feather in W's cap. Wow, no one could have predicted this additional fiasco. What's a baby boomer President to do?

Your advise is to continue with the same endless violence that mitigated this whole sordid affair.
Bravo! Let's blockade, bomb, attack, KILL.

You can bet that will fix everything.

So as we light up the middle east, stop or slowdown the major portion of oil export, prices will skyrocket. You better make sure something terroristic happens or the people are really going to be in a VERY surly mood. Let's bring back some of that FEAR, lets start going yellow, orange and red. Fox will interrupt for their honest, balanced coverage.

Let's see if we include the bigger picture of Russia and China really upset with us, we have a picture of a pretty wild hornets nest don't we.

So you ask "what are the libs going to do about this?"

This is your WAR. Your blood. You own it. This is your congress, your senate. Your blood.

Maybe, just maybe, at the G8, W can keep his elbows off the podium while speaking, and stand up straight and not crack some lame jokes, with some reasonably well written script he'll not make anything worse than he already has. I seriously doubt it. He will look the fool again.

Mark, Jeremiah, you are men of God. You should be praying for peace. Not BLOOD. Hypocrites. All a ya.

This is your WAR. YOUR BLOOD. You figure out a way of this one hotshots. You got us into this mess.

Maroons.

Raker,

Rather late to pray for peace when the war has already started - I pray for victory, and the safety of all allies, the conversion of all enemies.

You seem a very bitter person - perhaps you should let go of your anger a bit?

Mark would not you be mad if your friends were sent to die for lies. Oh, I guess not! Who would Jesus bomb? According to yall "christians" Everyone. Good post Raker!

albert,

You, of course, would be of the opinion that lies are what we are fighting for right now.

I can't cure you of that notion - only your desiring to turn away from lies will do the trick.

As I sit in Nebraska, near a major air base, I wonder at the silence there. Normally there is a lot of activity, day and night. Maybe the planes have been deployed, or maybe I just missed most of it during some rather nasty thunderstorms tonight. I wonder what I will be seeing, or not seeing in the air over Bellevue in the next few days. You kind of get used to the big command post birds that fly around here, training new pilots as well as manning the watch (never sure which it is at any given time).

As I sit in Nebraska, near a major air base, I wonder at the silence there. Normally there is a lot of activity, day and night. Maybe the planes have been deployed, or maybe I just missed most of it during some rather nasty thunderstorms tonight. I wonder what I will be seeing, or not seeing in the air over Bellevue in the next few days. You kind of get used to the big command post birds that fly around here, training new pilots as well as manning the watch (never sure which it is at any given time).

Hi Mark! No, actually Washington was a Christian. Jefferson was not. Most of the Founding Fathers were deists, and didn't believe in Jesus as lord, but that the way to best serve God was to serve His creation, man and mankind.

As I said, I'm no fan of the mustachio'ed jack-booted tyrant, but when I see similarities, I calls 'em as I see's 'em.

Cool insight though! "You are aware, aren't you, that Hitler [read "politician"] fibbed from time to time in his public utterances? You know, all those proclamations of peaceful intentions and desire to get along with everyone? But the truth will out, as they say."

Some would draw analogies to Iraq. But of course, they must be currrazzzyy! Looney tunes! Woo woo woo woo woo! Hey Mo'!

                            Sieg heil, baby...!
                         ___   /
                        / (`\\   ,
                        c` 9\9  .  '
                   ___.-| -_"/
                  /\===\|_/===\
                 /`/ __|,\
                ( - | '|/o| '|- \

Although congo wants to change the subject (again) to Hitler, I think we should try to stay on topic.

President Bush keeps his sense of humor and his cards close to his chest in the face of the moonbat press.

Press conference in Stralsund, Germany:

Q Thank you, sir. Just to follow up --

PRESIDENT BUSH: Follow up on?

Q On both of these. Does it concern you that the Beirut airport has been bombed? And do you see a risk of triggering a wider war?

And on Iran, they've, so far, refused to respond. Is it now past the deadline, or do they still have more time to respond?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I thought you were going to ask me about the pig.

Q I'm curious about that, too. (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT BUSH: The pig? I'll tell you tomorrow after I eat it.

Not only does he not give anything away, but he neutralizes the press with his disarming sense of humor. God bless President Bush!

Mark, before considering your brilliant plan for the Middle East, we should all remember this:

You, and the Bush adminstration that you blindly support, are always wrong about the Middle East.

Let's review, shall we?

You thought we'd be greeted as liberators in Iraq. WRONG.

You thought freedom and democracy would blossom from Iraq. WRONG.

You thought removing Saddam and the Taliban would weaken Iran. WRONG, WRONG, SO TRAGICALLY WRONG.

You thought the 'Cedar Revolution' was caused by Iraq and was a step towards stability. WRONG.

You continually have characterized the Iraqi conflict as over, a success, in its last throes. Unfortunately, you are WRONG again and again on this one.

Now that we've established your track record, lets take a look at your 'plan', shall we? What do you think the retaliation will be for us invading Syria and Iran? Don't you think they will launch every missile they have at our positions in Iraq? It shouldn't be hard, they've had their missiles trained on Iraq for the last 30 years. How about Israel, do you really think Israel wants the baggage of the hated US getting involved in their conflict now? Is this more or less likely to provoke further attacks against Israel?

As for my plan, you're right I don't have a clue. Dear Leader has dug us into a pit here, and I don't see a way out. I am smart enough to realize that the first step is to stop digging, though.

I find it hard to blame Israel in their reaction. The only thing I question is going after the Lebanese government in the north. If the lebananese government and people don't like Hezballah (and honestly I don't know how much that is true), this could be an opportuniry for israel to take them out or really weaken then, or at least isolate them from the rest of the country.

I think Israel could handle Lebanon without our aid. The question is, what happens if Iran gets involved. I'm sure there are hawks who are hoping this is our chance to go after them. Personally, I think that needs to be avoided. There seems to be some who want WWIII right now. I don't because I don't see any reason why it would just make the entire region like Iraq is right now. It would be a cluster-fuck of which the outcome is seen in VERY muddy waters.

Heres a great one for ya. Since the press automaticly assumes Isreal is on the wrong side of everything. And are trying to paint the lebanese goverment as completely innocent.

"The Lebanese government, caught in the middle, pleaded for a cease-fire. The government has no control over Hezbollah, which has a free hand in southern Lebanon and also holds seats in parliament."

Ok.... so they are trying to tell me the Lebanese government is innocent, yet they have Hezbollah IN THE GOVERNMENT.

Mark,

From the Mother Ship, a message: 94%^^*(_" [} L:''$#

Now, you said:

You seem a very bitter person - perhaps you should let go of your anger a bit?

Pal, If you ain't mad as hell, you ain't been paying attention.

Or we could do what "congressive" suggested on another thread:

"One trillion dollars worth of therapists."

We could just send "psychiatrists, psycologists, masseuses, doctors, chiropractors and even more important to winning hearts and minds, Tony Robbins finacial gurus backed up with incredibly favorable business loans to small enterpreneurs, shopkeepers, college loans, subsidies for cell phone expansion and city parks and recreation" to solve the problems in Syria, Iran, and Lebanon.

If sure that this army of therapists will be able to resolve the crisis in a matter of a few therapy sessions. I can just see the line at the "United States Therapy Corps" recruiting office forming now. Thousands of liberal shrinks with their notepads are just waiting to head over to the ME and get to work.

/sarcasm off

Okay on a serious note, why not sent George Bush the first, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter as negotiaters? Maybe at the same time send Michael Jordan to North Korea.

What could it hurt?

Mark,

You'd better read this before you go on:

Vatican reacts.

Bob Arctor said: "he neutralizes the press with his disarming sense of humor. God bless President Bush!"

Yegads, that's it! All Bush has to do is ratchet up that disarming sense of humor a bit and Syria and Iran will be neutralized!

The newest National Security plank in the Democrat Party platform: "$1,000,000,000,000 earmarked for Therapy for Terrorists, Tyrants, Dictators, and Jihadists".

And you ask why liberals can never be allowed to control or influence our National Security ever again.

Relax, y'all. Mark, you especially. We are not going to be initiating more military action against anyone in the near future, and let me be on the record for predicting that "near future" means the the rest of the Bush administration's tenure.

Military recruitment is at an all-time low. Does anyone think this is a coincidence? By the pentagon's own judgement, the war in Iraq is significantly straining our military resources, in terms of both material and morale.

The defense department has COMPLETELY lost the confidence of the pentagon. Rumsfeld continues to battle for his credibility with what remains of the war in Iraq. The bulk of the Bush-appointed architects of the war have been forced out of their respective war-time duties. Rumsfeld himself, a hanger-on not withstanding, will NOT be allowed to participate in the planning of another war, and Bush has showed no interest in removing him from SECDEF.

Let's everyone be clear on this point: if we seriously want to suggest any kind of military action against Iran or Syria, then we must be willing to enter into full-scale war with both. This is not a platitude, and not my opinion. It is how our military does things.

And right now, our military is, by most accounts, VERY reluctant to stretch any farther.

Here's a couple of Mark's more naive tidbits that I just can't ignore:

- "I'd prefer us not to have to move out major units [from Iraq] for at least two or three more months, but war doesn't always allow you to do your preferred action."

This made me laugh. Two or three months Mark? Even the most brazen optimists in the Bush administration don't dare suggest ANY concrete improvements before the end of this year, let alone two or three months. Don't be foolish.

- "As for Iran - we've already got the ships in theater to clamp down a sufficient blockade (which would be designed to halt tanker traffic from Iran ..."

Right, an embargo against Iranian tankers, brilliant. The Bush administration seems REAL eager to cause more disruptions in the oil market, doesn't it? Oil hit a record $78/barrel today, and is REPEATEDLY mentioned by the fed and almost every analyst in the country as a MAJOR threat to our economy. Do you wonder why we haven't heard the slightest hint of a suggestion from Bush of an oil embargo? Because he is terrified (and rightly so) of any disruption of oil from Iran. Great idea Mark!

- "as well as sufficient air power, backed up by long range bombers from the US, to at least significantly degrade Iran's nuclear infrastructure."

You're really not paying attention, are you? By all accounts, Iran's nuclear program is highly distributed and very well protected, much of it far enough underground that the ability of current US air munitions to touch it is in serious doubt. This has been WIDELY REPORTED for over twenty years, ever since Israel bombed Iraq's fledgeling nuclear facilities in 1981. Not only are you obviously not a military man, Mark, you don't even seem to read the news.

And again, our military doesn't just do naval blockades and selective bombing of a country like Iran without preparing for full-scale war. And neither the military nor America's citizens seem real enthused about another war right now.

So like I said, relax.

Ten per cent of the population have a personality disorder.

For some reason they all seem to have gravitated to this site.

I see liberals throwing insults, criticizing Iraq, and discussing religion. But - still no opinions on WHAT WE SHOULD DO!!!!!

It reminds me of the Social Security debate.

As I sit in Nebraska, near a major air base, I wonder at the silence there. Normally there is a lot of activity, day and night. Maybe the planes have been deployed, or maybe I just missed most of it during some rather nasty thunderstorms tonight. I wonder what I will be seeing, or not seeing in the air over Bellevue in the next few days. You kind of get used to the big command post birds that fly around here, training new pilots as well as manning the watch (never sure which it is at any given time).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I live on a major AF base. All is normal here. We are still at Alpha. My husband says no buzz, as of now.

Nate Says: Military recruitment is at an all-time low.

~~~~~~~~~

LMAO! That is so not the truth! All branches reached or exceeded their recruitment goals...and has been this way for over a year! LOL

Nate says: Military recruitment is at an all-time low. Does anyone think this is a coincidence? By the pentagon's own judgement, the war in Iraq is significantly straining our military resources, in terms of both material and morale.

LMAO! This is so far from the truth. Fact is, all branches recruitment have met or exceeded goals for over the past year! People are siging up despite Iraq. LOL. Please.

Well, Nate comes the closest to making a suggestion. Here is mine.

Stay out of it. Stay out of it publically and loudly. No American attacks on Lebanon or Syria. But, run diplomatic cover for Israel in the U.N. Also, supply them with any ammunition, food, or medical supplies they need. Also. If they attack Iran - let them fly right over iraq to do it. If Iran attcks them, make sure we give them inbound air raid warnings.

If Iran, or Syria, or anybody else attacks us - use overwhelming force (we still have plenty of firepower - especially airpower)and completely destroy them. No half measures.

News from Iraq today as the war winds down:

Gunmen attack checkpoint, kill 12 Iraqi soldiers
Gunmen attacked an Iraqi army checkpoint in northern Iraq on Friday, killing 12 soldiers and wounding one, Iraqi army Major General Anwar Hamad Ameen said.

Six mortar rounds hit Shi'ite mosque in Balad Ruz
Six mortar rounds hit a Shi'ite mosque, killing two people and wounding four in the town of Balad Ruz about 40 km (25 miles) southeast of Baquba, police said.

12 Bodies found in Tal Afar
Police found 12 bodies dumped in a deserted cemetery in Tal Afar, about 420 km (260 miles) northwest of Baghdad, police said. Hospital sources said it was thought they had been strangled four or five months ago.

Two policemen killed by sniper fire in Tal Afar
A sniper killed two policemen manning a checkpoint in Tal Afar on Thursday, police said.

US outsources war to Filipinos
Filipinos are taking up work at US-run facilities in Iraq, dodging an official Philippines travel and employment ban on the war-torn country and providing the US military and its affiliated contractors the cheap, English-speaking manpower

Bomb kills 7 at Baghdad Sunni mosque
A bomb planted in the street killed at least seven people and wounded five as they left a Sunni mosque in northern Baghdad after Friday prayers, police said.

Firebrand Iraqi cleric lashes out at Israel over Lebanon
Radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has lashed out at Israel and urged Iraqis to stand behind Lebanon to confront a "common enemy".

Medics spread lifesaver training to others in Iraq
Combat Lifesaver training is a bridge between first aid training and the combat medic, and it's saving lives in Iraq. The Combat Lifesaver Course is taught primarily to the Army's active duty,

US Iraq War Costs May Rise By $406 billion by 2016
The Iraq war could cost U.S. taxpayers between $202 billion and $406 billion more over the next 10 years, depending on how quickly U.S. force levels can be reduced, congressional budget experts said on Thursday.

Baghdad under curfew
A curfew was imposed on the Iraqi capital Friday from 11 am until three pm to prevent any attacks which might be aimed at people praying in mosques. A security source said that the curfews reduce insurgency activities in the capital.

Wife,

No goals have yet been met for this year. Dramatically increased financial incentives and some adjustments in the maximum duty age and quality standards have increased recruitment over the disastrous results of 2005, but the pentagon only PREDICTS that it will meet it's goals for this year.

Observe, wife, that we have only been able to recruit the soldiers we need by offering substantial increases in pay and bonuses. We figure to pay bonuses this year that average around $5000, but there will be many that will need to be up to $40,000.

Also observe, wife, that you did not even attempt to refute the main point of that paragraph, which is that the war in Iraq is putting a significant strain on our military, and that the pentagon is understandably reluctant to enter another fight.

Did you even read my entire post?

Nate - I think the Marines are doing just fine.

Air Strikes on all Iranian SAMs, then their Air Force, then their WMD, then their Revolutionary Guards..

Kahn, "just fine" is pretty vague term. Ask your marine friends how easy is was to get body armor and uparmored vehicles, even after the military leadership brought up the issue to the Bush administration. How many of your marine friends have had their rotations is Iraq extended, or have been called back for a second or even a third tour? And ask them how they feel about being pressed into the role of policemen in urban areas, after the Bush administration ignored all of the military's cautions and suggestions concerning the maintanence of existing Iraqi security forces (read about Paul Bremmer to refresh yourself on the administration's incompetence and arrogance in 2003 and 2004).

And yes, most soldiers will be glad to tell you that they're doing just fine. They are a tough and resilient bunch, and that's what we love about them.

BTW, I think your "no half measures" phrase sums up my feelings very well on this subject.

Nate, will you please site your source for the information you are providing in regards to recruitment being down?

Just curious.

Army exceeds recruiting goals for 13th month
Navy, Marine Corps also surpass objectives, Pentagon says

Updated: 11:10 a.m. AKT July 10, 2006
WASHINGTON - The Army surpassed its recruiting goal for June, the Pentagon said Monday, marking the 13th consecutive month the service met or exceeded its target.

The Navy met its goal and Air Force and Marine Corps exceeded theirs slightly, according to Defense Department statistics.

Recruiting is especially important to the Army, which has been stretched thin by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The active-duty Army, which is offering a wider array of financial incentives for potential recruits and has put thousands more recruiters on the street, found 8,756 new recruits last month, compared with its target of 8,600, the Pentagon said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13805020/

Marines recruiting is just fine. You changed the question.

Otherwise, well as the Marines say: " When life deals you lemons, eat your freakin lemons and shut up!"

Were there issues with supplies and weapons? of course. Whats your point? Those are issues to overcome, not issues to ring our hands over as we wet ourselves in the dark.

Kahn and Wife,

You are correct, I am wrong; I am seeing the same stats that you are now. Recruitment in 2006 is clearly making up for the shortfalls of the previous few years.

However, allow me to repeat what I said in a previous response: we have only been able to recruit the soldiers we need by offering substantial increases in pay and bonuses. The bonuses, by some military estimates, will average $5000 per recruit.

My error not withstanding, the fact that we are having to spend a lot more money to induce people to sign up for military service does not exactly indicate overwhelming enthusiasm for the war effort, does it?

So... unless you think I need to be spanked more, how about you address the real point of my original paragraph, which was that our military has been uncomfortably strained by the Iraq war, in terms of both material and morale, and that a couple more large-scale conflicts is unlikely to be approved by either congress or the American public.

Kahn, I did not change they question, I am merely sticking to my guns when I point out the problems that the Bush administration's poor decisions have caused for our military. Were not just talking about some issues with supplies and weapons. We're talking about gross incompetence on the part of the Dept. of Defense and the civilian administrators appointed by Bush to oversee Iraq's reconstrucion. Again, I implore you, go look up some info in Paul Bremmer, Bush's appointee and perhaps the least qualified person we could possibly have put in charge.

And in light of Bush's continuing intransigence, I think some hand-wringing is in order. Bush has mumbled a couple of lines here and there amounting to "mistakes were made", but Rumsfeld is still at SECDEF, NO ONE ELSE has been fired, and now the administration is actually talking about WITHDRAWING troops.

Is anyone honestly saying that our performance in this war should serve as an inspiration to enter another one?

Ash,

Better to read the actual release:

14-July-2006 -- Vatican Information Service

HOLY SEE CONDEMNS VIOLENCE IN MIDDLE EAST

VATICAN CITY, JUL 14, 2006 (VIS) - Cardinal Secretary of State Angelo Sodano today made the following declaration on Vatican Radio:

"The news we are receiving from the Middle East is certainly worrying.

"The Holy Father Benedict XVI and all his collaborators are following with great attention the latest dramatic episodes, which risk degenerating into a conflict with international repercussions.

"As in the past, the Holy See also condemns both the terrorist attacks on the one side and the military reprisals on the other. Indeed, a State's right to self-defense does not exempt it from respecting the norms of international law, especially as regards the protection of civilian populations.

"In particular, the Holy See deplores the attack on Lebanon, a free and sovereign nation, and gives assurances of its closeness to those people who have suffered so much in the defense of their own independence.

"Once again, it appears obvious that the only path worthy of our civilization is that of sincere dialogue between the contending parties."

An ecumenical condemnation of violence on both sides - but, also, not something enjoined upon Catholics to adhere to.

Well, nobody forces one to join. And they have ALWAYS had high enlistment bonuses depending on the career. Some range form a few thousand...to well over $5000.

My husband joined 6yrs ago, voluntarily...he got a $20,000 signing bonus, based on his job and the amount of years he was signing for. This was BEFORE us being in Iraq.

When he re-enlists into his new career field - next year(after cross training), he will receive a $64,000 re-enlistment bonus. This amount has not changed since before us being in Iraq.

So clearly, enlistment bonuses are nothing new. And have always been there and probably always will be unless some democrat gets in and screws it all up.

~~~~~

And I agree that there have been some shortfalls in regards to supply.

There are also some major shortfalls in how much a military member gets PAID. In the shape of housing that they provide us. And in many other areas.

I have my own complaints about some of that stuff.

But thank God President Bush is in office, because he has approved raises for my husband every year he has been in office.

I fear that once a dem gets into office, this may stop.

Good Nate - we have established your pedigree. Now.... WHAT DO WE DO IN REGARDS TO ISRAEL?????

AFWife,

The military seems to be lowering their requirements quite a bit to meet recruitment goals. Including skin heads which previously had been rejected.

There is some reason to worry that these skin heads will take the experience they gain in urban and guerilla warfare and use them later here at home.

AFWIFE, it is true that bonuses have always been a part of the recruitment process, and rightly so. But the military's current recruitment success appears (according to the statements I am reading) to be the result of large INCREASES in these bonuses and in the regular pay. The point being that we (as taxpayers) are now having to pay much more in order to maintain an effective military.

Kahn, my pedigree has always been available to anyone who cared to look at my AKC papers.

I'm hesitant to enter into discussion about Israel because I frankly don't feel qualified. I am continually angered by what I perceive to be oppression of the Palestinians by Israel, and by Israel's overkill military tactics,

*but*

I have never lived in fear of being killed in a random attack on a bus or at a restaurant, as I believe many Israelis do. I tend to think that such a perpetual threat would make me somewhat more likely to support Israel's harsh treatment of the Palestinians.

Ash - stuck on stupid? What do we do now?

AFWIFE, it is true that bonuses have always been a part of the recruitment process, and rightly so. But the military's current recruitment success appears (according to the statements I am reading) to be the result of large INCREASES in these bonuses and in the regular pay. The point being that we (as taxpayers) are now having to pay much more in order to maintain an effective military.

Kahn, my pedigree has always been available to anyone who cared to look at my AKC papers.

I'm hesitant to enter into discussion about Israel because I frankly don't feel qualified. I am continually angered by what I perceive to be oppression of the Palestinians by Israel, and by Israel's overkill military tactics,

*but*

I have never lived in fear of being killed in a random attack on a bus or at a restaurant, as I believe many Israelis do. I tend to think that such a perpetual threat would make me somewhat more likely to support Israel's harsh treatment of the Palestinians.

Ash,

RE: "There is some reason to worry that these skin heads will take the experience they gain in urban and guerilla warfare and use them later here at home."

You mean like fighting the gangs and gang wars in our major cities? Perhaps they can help in dealing with MS-13 if needed.

I think you should be more concerned about our home-grown killers and criminals -- who will kill you just for the fun of it -- than those who have served as disciplined and responsible members of our military!

AAR

Nate,

Have you checked lately? America is paying more for everything.

How much do you think a person should be paid who is willing to risk and possibly give their life for America? Check on the millions of dollars that were paid to the victims of 9/11 and compare that to the paltry sum paid to the survivors of those who died in service to their country!

AAR

AAR,

No argument there. We have to pay what it takes to maintain a military, and the amount we pay reflects their value to us.

This is not about how much they "deserve". Maybe each serviceman "deserves" a million dollars. And maybe every cop and firefighter does too. And if you're a real liberal type, you'd be saying "if only we payed teachers better..."

It used to be that being a republican entailed some sort of fiscal conservatism. The Bushies have turned this completely upside down, to the point that we now have DEMOCRATS accusing the bush administration of bloating the government. Democrats, for christmas sake! It makes me want to gouge out my eyes with rolled up 100's.

Sorry my neo-con wannabes - regime change in Iran would make our little fiasco in Iraq look like a cake walk. (Well whadya know - Rummy did insist in the beginning that Iraq would be a cake walk... maybe he will prove right after all - if not intrinsically, at least by comparison)

Nate- Very insightful posts-you made some good points that even silenced the right wingnuts. I agree that recruitment is down-one sign of this is that the military is accepting skinheads (neo-nazis) again. After the Oklahoma City bombing in the 90's we stopped allowing them to join, fearing that we would recruit, train and finance another Timothy McVeigh.
But it seems we are becoming desperate.Even soldiers with symptoms of mental illness are medicated and allowed to re-enlist. What's next? Early release from prison for two-year enrollments? Recruiting from mental institutions?

Ash--

Good find, but as Noonan predictably demonstrated, he only cares what the Vatican has to say when he agrees with it.

Nate--

Your central thrust is correct. The military has lowered recruiting goals (and standards for recruitment), and has taken measures to articificially inflate service numbers. That's not even getting into the violations of recruiting guidelines--see this charming story about the Army recruiting an autistic 18-year-old, among other similar stories:

Jared's story illustrates a growing national problem as the military faces increasing pressure to hit recruiting targets during an unpopular war.

Tracking by the Pentagon shows that complaints about recruiting improprieties are on pace to approach record highs set in 2003 and 2004. The active Army and the Reserve missed recruiting targets last year, and reports of recruiting abuses continue from across the country.

A family in Ohio reported that its mentally ill son was signed up, despite rules banning such enlistments and the fact that records about his illness were readily available.

In Houston, a recruiter warned a potential enlistee that if he backed out of a meeting he would be arrested.

And in Colorado, a high school student working undercover told recruiters he had dropped out and had a drug problem. The recruiter told the boy to fake a diploma and buy a product to help him beat a drug test.

Bob Arctor said:

"Not only does he not give anything away, but he neutralizes the press with his disarming sense of humor. God bless President Bush!"

Are you kidding me, man?

When these events go off-script, he falls apart. This stuff is far beyond his reach. He's in the weeds. So he resorts to his dumbed-down colloquial cracks to cover for the fact that he hasn't a clue what to say.

And when he gets to the point (sort of), it's painfully obvious he has no real opinions of his own. He just goes from one rehearsed phrase to another. He can't even string those phrases together into coherent sentences.

"In order for—to help solve these problems, you just can't say things and not mean it." –GWB

That's not foreign policy. That's a guy who's in way over his head.

And since when is the goal of a press conference to "neutralize" the press. When I read that, I get the sense that you think he doesn't really owe the American people or the world an answer. If he can deflect the question so as not to have to give a coherent answer, good for him?

What I'd do for someone who actually knows what he's talking about...

Painful embarrassment.

Sees,

Are you so determined to show hatred of the US military that you will bring up old news?

Yeah, there were a few (a very, very few) boneheaded recruiters out there in the past, but that has all been fixed...

Stop hating your country so much - it'll make you a better person all 'round if you let a little love in.

Sorry you find the facts so offensive, Noonan. Good thing you can always stick your fingers in your ears and yell, "Lalalalalalala!" By the way, let me know when you rise above the intellectual laziness of ascribing any and every negative thing pointed out to "hatred," OK? It'll make you a much better person all 'round.

Sees,

Facts which are out of date and yet used as if they were current are lies - you are lying about what is going on.

Errortime, please give the link to the quote from Rumsfeld---or anyone else---about Iraq being a "cakewalk". I never heard it except on Air America, as an invented quote. I did hear the president say, repeatedly, that this would be a long and difficult war.

You all keep putting up your straw men so you can knock them down. As if we haven't seen that so often we can't recognize the ploy when you try it.

Not only is military recruitment up, but Iraq veterans are volunteering for second, third,and fourth deployments, because they have been there, they have seen and experienced the truth of what we are doing there, and they believe in it. Yeah, but YOU know more than THEY do. Uh-huh.

If the terrorists really wanted us to leave, they would stop killing. It's that simple. We say we will stay till the killing is stopped or under control, and they step up the attacks. Does it sound like their primary goal is for us to leave? Obviously not. Does it sound like their attacks are in protest of our being there? Obviously not.

The reason the attacks are increasing is because they are terrified of, and threatened by, the prospect of a free and democratic Iraq. This is a far greater threat to them than American soldiers in the country.

So why do you think they are so freaked out by the prospect of a free and democratic Iraq? What do you think is the threat of an Iraq which is governed by a secular, elected, coaltion of former enemies?

This is so obvious to so many of us, we can't imagine how or why it is so impenetrable to you lefties. The logic is there. The only reason you can't seem to be able to figure it out is that it simply does not fit your anti-Bush agenda.

To admit that the prospect of a free, secular, democratic Iraq is such a frightening threat to radical Islam that it must send its thugs from all its other countries there to thwart its development would mean, if you were to follow it through, that the existence of such a country in the Middle East would be a blow to terrorism. And you simply could never admit that.

On the contrary, you are as invested in seeing this developing nation fail as the terrorists are, though for what you think are different reasons. They want it to fail because its success would weaken terrorism. You want it to fail because its failure would be a 'gotcha' on Bush and all conservatives. But what we see, and you refuse to acknowledge, is that your goal, if achieved, would also advance their goal. And we just can't see why that doesn't bother you.