The lefts continuing refusal to serve could lead to a separate warrior class in this country. Our own Samurai.

When you go to your Eagle Scout Board of Review, the last step to your Eagle, you have to write a letter on you plans. My oldest wrote of college and his plans to be an Army officer. My middle son, who will be fourteen, next month is focused on Annapolis and plans on being an Officer of Marines.

Their father, grandfathers, great grand fathers, uncles, great uncles, aunts, and cousins and all served – or ARE serving. Both of my older boys (above) knew my uncle before he died two years ago. He was portrayed in Band of Brothers. They see the e-mails from their cousin who is an Army captain in Iraq. They see their cousin and his sister IMMEDIATELY volunteer to return upon her return here. They saw pictures of her pinning on his captain bars last month in Iraq. They know that no less than four immediate neighbors have been to Iraq as Army officers and that one flew special ops type missions in Africa. ------------ And, they’ve seen and spoken to wounded soldiers and Marines at various venues in the DC area.

No illusions. No glory (I hope). Just an understanding of service, commitment, honor, and duty.

Funny – I wonder if this is the REAL reason the Democrats hate the Boy Scouts.

the problem w sloganeering, ie - "surrender" or "cut n run" (besides insulting the intelligence) is that it (sloganeering) serves to eliminate meaningful debate & critique by wrongfully reducing complex issues to 2 dimensions. as it's most basic, it remains an invalid form of argumentation.

this is NOT useful in formulating military strategy/tatics wherein ALL scenarios MUST be fully explored & countermeasured including WORST CASE SCENARIOS!

recall it may well be argued (in hindsight) that the LACK of comprehensive debate, & corresponding countermeasures, has resulted in our current posture in the mid-east.

make no mistake, soldiers have died & our interests have suffered because ASSUMPTIONS were substituted for comprehensive discussion, debate & countermeasure.

soundbite sloganeering loses elections...and kills our soldiers.

Don't divide us on the issue of protecting our country. The military is now evenly split among Republicans and Democrats according to recent polls. We all want the same result; we just differ on tactics.

"Surrender"... to whom?

"Victory"... over whom?

Iran? Shi'a? Sunni? Islam? Osama? "Terra-ists"? Evil? The French? The World? Bush's ego?

im a proud Eagle Scout and refuse to support the war...what can i say, im old school isolationist, but then again i was taught the difference between nationalism and patriotism.

Thrower – the United States military is overwhelmingly conservative. Though at some times (like now) they may not fully support the Republican Party. That does NOT mean they have switched to being Democrats. Only 16% identify as Democrat while even at reduced strenght, 46% identify as Republican, Point?
------------------------------
Military Time Poll Published: Dec. 29, 2006
“While Bush fared well overall, his political party didn’t. In the three previous polls, nearly 60 percent of the respondents identified themselves as Republicans, which is about double the population as a whole. But in this year’s poll, only 46 percent of the military respondents said they were Republicans. However, there was not a big gain in those identifying themselves as Democrats — a figure that consistently hovers around 16 percent. The big gain came among people who said they were independents. “
http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php

Further…

Who serves:
“On the socioeconomic side, the military is strongly middle class, Gilroy said. More recruits are drawn from the middle class and fewer are coming from poorer and wealthier families. Recruits from poorer families are actually underrepresented in the military, Gilroy said.
Other trends are that the number of recruits from wealthier families is increasing, and the number of recruits from suburban areas has increased. This also tracks that young men and women from the middle class are serving in the military.
Young men and women from urban areas are not volunteering, Gilroy said. In fact, urban areas provide far fewer recruits as a percentage of the total population than small towns and rural areas.”
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/demographics.htm

Libertarian - Fair enough. Can you expalin the difference between nationalism and patriotism and how they relate to the bloodbath and political turmoil that will result if we pull out of Iraq?

OhioOrrin - I actually agree with your post.

Slogans aside, can you give us your views on what will happen in Iraq:
1. If we pull out as fast as possible
2. Stay as we are now
3. Adapt (even if that means sending more troops) to try and win.

I'd like you to discuss the effect on a full scale civil war possibly drawing in neighbors and resultant casualties. The possibility that war would pit Saudi Arabia against Iran in open conflict. The possibility that Turkey might use that as a chance to crush the Kurds. And the possibility of a divided Iraq - possibly owned and annexd by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran.

Take your time.

It has come to my attention that very few people realize the ramifications of our pulling out and leaving the current mess for the Iraqis to solve. The solution would be horrific, and the body count would reach, and surpass, the fictional 650,000 that the kooks have latched onto.

It has also come to my attention that debating this issue in this blog is useless, unless all the kook trolls are banned. They have no vision, no ideas, no solution. Therefore, they have no say. They may as well move to Canada, and have no say from there...

keefer

Nice to see that you admit to making one heck of a mess in Iraq. At least you have a bit of honesty left.

Thanks CO. But sorry, I missed the proposed solution in your post? Just what was it again?

At least you have a bit of honesty left.

Uh, asshat, I never said things were rosy and festive there, and I didn't make any mess. You're a stupid toad. And yes, my second paragraph is completely honest too. You have added nothing to this blog in what, two years? You come here to gloat, and to piss us off. Well, guess what? It worked. Are you happy? If you were in front of me right now, you'd lose a few teeth, or have your jaw broken. And there are others here who feel the same way as I do.

Now run along, little Canadian wuss--axis and CG are a-missin' you...

Deleted - off topic, commenter banned

Kahn,
Ok, here are my ideas.
First, pull the bulk of our forces back to Kuwait and our bases in parts of Iraq that are already secured. Work on training new Iraqy forces and supporting those that are in the field with quick striking infantry forces and air power. This would leave fewer American targets but still allow us to use our firepower anytime the bad guys make a big push.
Second, convene a Mideast conference on Iraq with all of the nations in the region, Iran, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and anyone else with a stake in the region. I don't know that it would get anything done, but it would make us look good. I know most of the people on this blog hate Iran and Syria and would like to blow them up. If the negotiations didn't work you would still have that option.

Kahn -

While we don't know who said it, the truth is that in rhetorical falsehoods there are indeed "lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Citing about.com's resident military guru and his interpretation of recent DoD-wide statistics on current yearly recruiting levels does not accurately reflect the current make up of the armed forces, especially those in the theatre of combat. Chair Force and Navy enlistees face a much different career reality than that of the soldiers and Marines, as we all know.

The fact remains that you can bend numbers however you want it, but those who are most hawkish and pro-Bush and who stand to benefit most from a continued economic international bias towards American corporations (ie Yellow Elephant/Chickenhawks) are not doing their share of the actual fighting.

At least we liberals who believe the fighting is taking away from America's greatness put our money where our mouths are. This war is not making us/will not make us a better nation, or safer, or less-likely to face future terrorist attacks.

Those who serve should be treated with more respect than someone who is willing to say "Bring em on" and joke about not finding WMD at fund-raisers that raise more money than an entire squad makes in a year.

Casper – Thanks for posting. This is actually a common liberal plan. Let me pick some issues out, OK?

1. Pull the bulk of our forces back to Kuwait and our bases in parts of Iraq that are already secured.

- If we did this, how would it help quell the ongoing violence? This violence is mostly Iraqi vs. Iraqi. Last year it’s been said 34,452 Iraqi civilians were killed. Some may not have been actual civilians, in that they were participants, I just don’t know. But the claim is more that thirty-four thousand people. Are we so myopic now that we don’t see this as a problem that needs to be fixed immediately?

2. Work on training new Iraqi forces and supporting those that are in the field with quick striking infantry forces and air power.

- This sounds good on the surface. But actually it betrays an ignorance of military affairs. Barely any of the forces there are “trigger pullers”. The bulk of our military fixes equipment, drives trucks, fixes aircraft, handles ordnance, cooks food, moves supplies, get the idea? It takes tons of people to support each actual infantryman. It’s more complicated than you think.

The air power is even worse. An Air Force squadron of several hundred people may only have 30 or 40 pilots (the actual trigger pullers). Each plane will also need to be controlled by air traffic controller, have targets identified, and be refueled often in the air – by entire squadrons of non-trigger pulling re-fuelers. See where I’m going with this?

3. This would leave fewer American targets but still allow us to use our firepower anytime the bad guys make a big push.

- As I just explained, it seems bad to us because it’s reported EVERY SINGLE NIGHT. But the Iraqis are the ones suffering 34,000 dead last year, not us. Pulling out would be seen as surrender and running by the people there – even if you and I don’t see it that way. That’s how Israel’s withdrawals from Lebanon, then Gaza, and recently Lebanon again were viewed. It would embolden the Sunni and Shia militias (who understand what victory is and who ARE willing to fight). Think what open warfare could mean? It’s already THIRTY FOUR THOUSAND dead a year. What MULTIPLE of that do you think it would be?

And, you know and I know that once those troops are pulled out, they are NEVER going back. The uproar from the left if the president tried to do that would be extreme – admit it.

4. Convene a Mideast conference on Iraq with all of the nations in the region, Iran, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and anyone else with a stake in the region. I don't know that it would get anything done, but it would make us look good. I know most of the people on this blog hate Iran and Syria and would like to blow them up. If the negotiations didn't work you would still have that option.

Well, I don’t know what the surrounding nations have to do with Iraqi sovereignty, but I’m OK with talks. I’d support them, so long as we pin absolutely NO hopes on them whatsoever. Both the Sunni and the Shia have extreme elements that want to kill the others and export their view of the world all over the globe. The Iranians are actively working to destabilize (that means killing innocent civilians) Iraq right now by supplying money, guns, bombs, and training. Do you really think talking to them (with them stopping first) is all that great an idea?

Chester - the rant of one bereaved brother. The polls I listed above were taken LAST month. Did you read any of it? I doubt it.

But oh, I missed your proposed solution also? You guys are in power now... so what’s the plan skippy?

I appologize if this is a double post, I'm having real problems posting.

Casper – Thanks for posting. This is actually a common liberal plan. I appreciate your candor Let me pick some issues out and you can respond, OK?

1. Pull the bulk of our forces back to Kuwait and our bases in parts of Iraq that are already secured.

- If we did this, how would it help quell the ongoing violence? This violence is mostly Iraqi vs. Iraqi. Last year it’s been said 34,452 Iraqi civilians were killed. Some may not have been actual civilians, in that they were participants, I just don’t know. But the claim is more that thirty-four thousand people. Are we so myopic now that we don’t see this as a problem that needs to be fixed immediately?

2. Work on training new Iraqi forces and supporting those that are in the field with quick striking infantry forces and air power.

- This sounds good on the surface. But actually it betrays an ignorance of military affairs. Barely any of the forces there are “trigger pullers”. The bulk of our military fixes equipment, drives trucks, fixes aircraft, handles ordnance, cooks food, moves supplies, get the idea? It takes tons of people to support each actual infantryman. It’s more complicated than you think.

The air power is even worse. An Air Force squadron of several hundred people may only have 30 or 40 pilots (the actual trigger pullers). Each plane will also need to be controlled by air traffic controller, have targets identified, and be refueled often in the air – by entire squadrons of non-trigger pulling re-fuelers. See where I’m going with this?

3. This would leave fewer American targets but still allow us to use our firepower anytime the bad guys make a big push.

- As I just explained, it seems bad to us because it’s reported EVERY SINGLE NIGHT. But the Iraqis are the ones suffering 34,000 dead last year, not us. Pulling out would be seen as surrender and running by the people there – even if you and I don’t see it that way. That’s how Israel’s withdrawals from Lebanon, then Gaza, and recently Lebanon again were viewed. It would embolden the Sunni and Shia militias (who understand what victory is and who ARE willing to fight). Think what open warfare could mean? It’s already THIRTY FOUR THOUSAND dead a year. What MULTIPLE of that do you think it would be?

And, you know and I know that once those troops are pulled out, they are NEVER going back. The uproar from the left if the president tried to do that would be extreme – admit it.

4. Convene a Mideast conference on Iraq with all of the nations in the region, Iran, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and anyone else with a stake in the region. I don't know that it would get anything done, but it would make us look good. I know most of the people on this blog hate Iran and Syria and would like to blow them up. If the negotiations didn't work you would still have that option.

Well, I don’t know what the surrounding nations have to do with Iraqi sovereignty, but I’m OK with talks. I’d support them, so long as we pin absolutely NO hopes on them whatsoever. Both the Sunni and the Shia have extreme elements that want to kill the others and export their view of the world all over the globe. The Iranians are actively working to destabilize (that means killing innocent civilians) Iraq right now by supplying money, guns, bombs, and training. Do you really think talking to them (with them stopping first) is all that great an idea?
-------------------------------------------
Chester - the rant of one bereaved brother. The polls I listed above were taken LAST month. Did you read any of it? I doubt it.

But oh, I missed your proposed solution also? You don’t care about Iraqis being murdered? You guys are in power now... so what’s the plan skippy?

At least we liberals who believe the fighting is taking away from America's greatness put our money where our mouths are.

Yeah, those non-binding resolutions that are threatened really constitute putting your money where your mouths are.

This war is not making us/will not make us a better nation, or safer, or less-likely to face future terrorist attacks.

Spoken like a true armchair quarterback, or a parrot lemming. So, smart guy, just what would make us safer, sitting down and talking to state sponsors of terrorism? Worked really well for Carter and Clinton, didn't it?

Casper states:

"This would leave fewer American targets but still allow us to use our firepower anytime the bad guys make a big push."

So Casper, do you honestly believe that this type of withdrawl would prevent the Al Qaeda types from seeking out westerners to kill?

Kind of like before the sectarian violence when Zarquawi was kidnapping and be-heading folks like..Oh let's say Nick Berg and our own guys.

Your way of thinking is so closed to our actions...present time and past, that you can't seem to get past the "casualties and body count" rhetoric that is spewed by the DBM, and your hatred for GW.

Instead of dwelling on the coalition body count, try to close your eyes, put yourself in the shoes of a terrorist, and ask youself this question:
"What do I do if the Amewricans pull back and leave only a few to assist the Iraqi military?"

If you answer, "I know, I'll seek out the easist targets and then go after them wherever they go." Then you answered correctly, because if I were a terrorist that wakes up every day thinking about killing westerners, and I ran out of product, I'd be seeking them out too.

This "getting into their heads" is where we'll make the most headway on the WOT and eventully we'll be running these pukes into their graves.

I'm also happy to see that our military hasn't lost their will as the left in America has.

I have to agree, simply withdrawing troops is not a viable solution to the current mess. However, in order to judge the effectiveness of an extra 20,000 troops I'd have to know what they were going to be used for, i.e. how those extra troops would solve the problem.

My questions would be, since the current violence is fairly sectarian, why are those factions fighting each other, and would 20,000 extra troops solve that, and if they what would happen once they left? I could easily be wrong, but I can't see the solution being anything other than diplomatic.

Disclaimer: I'm from the UK in case that makes a difference.

Rich, It's a matter of who lives where.

The Kurds in the North have things under control and are fairly stable. They have some oils, and hence some money. Turkey and Iran aren't too happy with them because they both have Kurdish minorities nearby who may not mind splitting away to form a Kurdistan.

The Sunni's, as you know ruled Iraq with an iron fist. They no longer have control. And, the areas THEY live in have no oil. So, with the Shia controlled government being jerks about things - they are definitely getting the short end of the stick. Al-Queada is made up of an especially extremist group from within the Sunni tradition. They infiltrated the Sunni areas and started carrying out murders and bombings against Shia with the express intent of flaming tensions. They have been successful.

The Shia live where the oil is and have a large amount of power in the new Iraq. They have hatred of the Sunni from the years they were kept down by them. They have been angered by the murders and bombings, have their own brand of extremists, and fell for the Al-Queada bait. They are being almost openly supported by Iran - which is also Shia. Iran’s intentions can only be surmised. Maybe they want to just help their Shia brethren? maybe they want control of Iraq's oil? Could be the latter if you ask me.

Negotiations? Certainly. The Shia need to share power and act like nationalists rather than tribalist. The Sunni's were worse - but SOMEONE has to rise above it or we'll never get anywhere.

A VERY sad related event is the rise to power of the Democrats. They have told the press that they are not planning on doing ANYTHING about Iraq. They want it to fester and divide the Republicans. Though they landed power on promises of ending the war, they are actually counting on continued violence to get them MORE power. Pretty cynical isn't it? It's been described as vulture politics.

I could easily be wrong, but I can't see the solution being anything other than diplomatic.

Disclaimer: I'm from the UK in case that makes a difference.

Rich, at least you admit you could be wrong. Most here are armchair quarterbacks. Well, most of the kook trolls.

Where are you from in the UK? I spent almost eight years in England, at RAF Chicksands, from '83-'91. Loved it, mate, and would love to go back, but I hear it's changed a lot from then.

Thanks for the replies.

God is Great, I live in London, although my folks live out in Wiltshire (RAF Lyneham if your geography is airfield-based). Everywhere has changed a lot since the 80's, and in many ways for the better. For example, lots of pubs now serve restaurant quality food rather than microwaved pie and chips.

Back to the topic though...

As an outsider I'm much more interested in the Iraq solution than internal US politics, so I'll keep my comments to that.

These groups seem to have a relatively small number of leaders that they follow passionately, for example Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Muqtada al-Sadr, etc. but I haven't read anything recently about anyone attempting to negotiate with these leaders (other than the CPA trying to arrest Sadr). Can any of you shed some light on this?