Not Fooled Again

From the Washington Post:

Democrats fumed last week at Vice President Cheney's suggestion that criticism of the administration's war policies was itself becoming a hindrance to the war effort. But a new poll indicates most Americans are sympathetic to Cheney's point.

Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale -- with 44 percent saying morale is hurt "a lot," according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.

Any casual observer who knows anything about the military and who is honest could figure out that the congressional Democrats’ recent push to 'get out of Iraq ASAP' is hurting troop morale. Even during peacetime, most American GIs want to feel as though they are making a difference and that the homefront is behind them. During wartime--when those same GIs are under more frequent threat of life and limb--that feeling is amplified a thousand times.

When you have seen some of your buddies have died around you and you're aware that you might be next, what must it feel like to read the Internet and paper publications and find out that the congressmen and women who sent you there are ready to bail out leaving all the good works you've done to be trashed by the likes of the terrorist Zarqawi and his spiritual daddy, bin Laden? What must it feel like to see your countrymen spread rumors that you have used illegal chemical weapons--rumors born of mind-boggling ignorance (of weapons, of intelligence, you name it) in order to dirty your good name?

What must it feel like to know that if you and your comrades aren’t allowed to finish the task set before you that the type of men who would put hand grenades inside of toys would have free reign in Iraq?

What must it feel like to know that some of your countrymen want Iraq to be the next Vietnam, want you do become as demoralized as many of our honorable Vietnam veterans became and want peace-loving Iraqis to become the next people to die in droves while the living suffer under the next brutal dictatorship?

That there are people who care more about regaining political power than they care about America's honor, the honor of those who have died defending freedom, the honor of those who still live to defend it and the lives and liberty of a foreign people shouldn’t be a surprise, but it is.

However, it's wonderful to know that a large portion of the American public see such people for what they are.

(Thanks to John Cole)

(Cross-posted at Gut Rumbles)

Comments

[Warthog]

Michael Savage has changed"Liberalism is a mental disorder" to "Liberalism is a dangerous mental disorder". Our media and education system have been poisoned by liberalism.

[V the K]

It is as I said it would be. When you put the question to the American people, should we get out of Iraq, it's natural a majority would like us out.

However, if you put the question "Should America unconditionally surrender to al Qaeda in Iraq and let the terrorists claim victory," (As Rep. Murtha and most Democrats have advocated) the response is entirely different.

[justin]

No, V the K, that is not what Murtha has advocated, and it's a bit dishonest for you to suggest otherwise.

The point is, how do we best win in Iraq? How do we get the country from being on the verge of a civil war to being relatively peaceful and stable. Some, like Murtha, think that that is best achieved by setting a time table to pull out, thereby giving Iraqis incentive to provide for their own security, and take away the anger of certain Iraqis over the US occupation.

This is a point of view I disagree with (I think we should not set withdrawal timetables, but I could be convinced otherwise), but it has nothing to do with "surrendering". It has everything to do with how to best win this thing.

And Baldilocks, when will conservatives get over the "any criticism of the war hurts the troops" meme. This is a democracy, our troops our adults who understand we live in a democracy and I'm sure they can take a spirited public debate. Sure, some of the criticism of the war is stupid and counterproductive, but conservatives love to accuse any critics of somehow being un-American, or hurting the troops or whatever, and its getting a little old. At least these guys knew enough to back off of their attack of Murtha.

[Walter E. Wallis]

Sorry, Justin, but Martha's suggestion as a whole would have been disasterous from both a tactical and a strategic point of view. Abandoning a secure ground base yet promising to come back to a hot LZ landing is just plain stupid.
I am a decorated combat infantryman with service predating Martha's, and I call him a fool.

[V the K]

On the contrary, it is dishonest for Murtha and his pals to characterize the unconditional, immediate (the word "immediate is used three times in his press release) pull-out of American troops from Iraq as anything other than surrender.

And his "Over the Horizon" "Rapid Reaction Force" to be based at some unspecified place in the region? So, what? So we have to re-invade Iraq when the terrorists take over? How stupid is that?

[V the K]

Also, since lefties have been kvetching for years that Bush failed to plan for the aftermath of the invasion, shouldn't the left be required to put forth a plan for dealing with the aftermath of an unconditional retreat by the U.S. military from Iraq? Does the left have a plan for securing domestic security without a US force on the ground? Or does their post-pullout plan consist of feeling self-righteous, singing kumbayah, and taking another hit on the bong while thugs kill millions (the left's post-Vietnam strategy).

[Steve]

Somehow I think that Murtha is just the surface of something deeper. He, in a sense, is not actually acting on his own.

This is all about something else because it fits a pattern of events whose appearances are lined up like train cars. Or maybe lined up like a string of overlapping rings.

We as individuals in this country keep commenting on these various sticks (i.e. stories) that float passed us as though they just fell into the river by natural accident upstream somewhere. But I think it might be a good idea, or it should occur to us by now, that someone is purposely throwing these "sticks" in the water upstream. For what effect? Are we being played with? What for?
---
Time and space questions for the object called the "plan":

Time: Is something not going according to plan? If so, what was the original "plan" and how far back in time does it originate from in a larger and more general sense of the "plan"? Also, questions about any specific and relatively recent events that were a part of that "plan"?

Space: Is "upstream" far enough out that it includes people from outside the country who have interests here?

[Walter E. Wallis]

Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?

Shut up and count green cars or something.

[justin]

And his "Over the Horizon" "Rapid Reaction Force" to be based at some unspecified place in the region? So, what? So we have to re-invade Iraq when the terrorists take over? How stupid is that?

Not quite as stupid as thinking you can invade an ethnically factionalized dictatorship and install a western democracy, and be greeted as liberators in the process.

[Steve]

We are getting there I guess but you would have to ask "them" if we are "there yet"? I'm not the originator of this weirdness but if are going to be treated to these MSM political stories the way we have been then I can also return their calculated and cold serve coldly back.

We have been greeted as liberators by the people who count the most. And there are some very nice stories about what our troops have done and the people of Iraq who appreciate our efforts.

It doesn't so much concern me what the followers of Muqtada al-Sadr feel or what Sunni sympathizers with Saddam's Baathists feel and especially not the feelings of the Iraqis who have thrown in their lot with the foreign jihadists either before 911 or after March 20th 2003.

I see no reason not to spend some time balancing out this picture that we keep getting that we have totally been treated as unwanted dirt by the Iraqis because that is not true either. I don't know how things are overall right now in that relationship between the US-Coalition forces and the Iraqis but we wouldn't know because regardless of the way it has been throughout the last 2 1/2 years it has always been reported by the MSM in the way Justin implies it is.

There has been plenty of unreported positive things going on in Iraq and I feel that baldilock's reason for posting this was that if we had been getting a more balanced view of all of this from June 2003 on till now, would we be seeing better results in Iraq now? This question has had to naturally occur to anyone. I think we would be seeing better results in Iraq and the question is a good one and also ought to be included in an environment of free speech.

I haven't been the only one to sense the glee, or its flipside of feigned disgust, in the words of people who report on any real or imagined problems coming from Iraq.

[justin]

Steve--I love the logic--America is turning against the war because the good news goes unreported? If the good new is unreported, then where exactly are you getting the good news? If you are going to point me to some blogger, or Front Page Mag, then you need to explain why you believe those sources over, say, The Economist or the Wall Street Journal, which aren't exactly "liberal" publications.

It sounds like you've already made up your mind about the reality of Iraq, and no contrary evidence can convince you otherwise, so you pick out fringe sources that support your view.

[wayne]

Why is it we can't get lucky enough just once in the midst of wars and terrorist attacks for someone to succeed in killing a whole bunch of the greasy fatcat lying thieving lazy scumbags that make up the Congress??!!!.

Those miserable bastards take every chance of victory in making this a better country and manage to turn it into an effing episode of the Three Stooges.

Just one good hit to wake those pigs up to the fact that they are a part of this country with all of the rest of us and there are consequences to their freking stupidity.

The greatest enemy we have is the Congress of these United States.

[V the K]

Not quite as stupid as thinking you can invade an ethnically factionalized dictatorship and install a western democracy, and be greeted as liberators in the process.

Thus you concede my points: 1.) Murtha's plan is stupid and 2.) you don't have a plan for maintaining security and order after the unconditional surrender of U.S. troops Murtha called for.

[Eric]

These stories seem relevant to this discussion:

WaPo: Our Dangerous, Growing Divide
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/27/AR2005112700941.html

CSM: The Iraq story: how troops see it
http://search.csmonitor.com/search_content/1128/p01s02-usmi.html

I'm getting the same kind of reporting from OIF and OEF vets who've just left the military and are now attending Columbia U in NYC. They don't necessarily like Bush and they criticize aspects of the mission and mistakes from 1st hand experience, but they think - also from 1st hand experience - that we're on a "trajectory toward victory" in Iraq. I trust their observations. Columbia milvets are, by and large, independent critical thinkers and at least as intelligent as the next Ivy Leaguer. ;-)

I also have a buddy from my Army days who's now a USMA grad and PL in the 3rd ACR (HR McMaster's current unit). He fought in the Tal Afar campaign. He just returned to Iraq from his mid-tour leave. He complained how a Time magazine story (his tank is pictured in it) about the campaign bore very little resemblance to actual events on the ground. Basically, from his POV, the campaign went very smoothly and fairly easily but in Time Magazine, 5 weeks of events were compressed to seem like a bloody, vicious pitched battle.

[StinKerr]

Wayne, I think I like your idea.

Justin, One has to dig for the good news or positive reports. I demonstrated this using the NYT as an example on this thread (near the bottom). Negative things go on the front page, positive things are buried if they are printed at all.

When CentCom puts out a press release it is generally ignored by the MSM, after all they're "falsely promoting themselves", but anything that is negative is eagerly scooped up and it then "must be true if CentCom is reporting it". I call it selective authenticity.

They want to believe what they want to believe and discard that which goes against their ideals.

The positive news is out there it's just not picked up eagerly by most of the MSM.

Remember all the reports about electricity blackouts? Have you heard anything about electricity or jobs lately? How about this as a reason?

[baldilocks]

Eric:

Columbia milvets are, by and large, independent critical thinkers and at least as intelligent as the next Ivy Leaguer.

How dare you insult our veterans! :-D

Thanks for the info.

[Steve]

Good and recent article right along the lines of our conversation here. Well worth reading the whole thing. It gets better as it goes along:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1128/p01s02-usmi.html

Here is another website called "The Other Iraq" put out by the understandably thankful Kurds:

http://www.theotheriraq.com/

[wayne]

I really think Michael Yon and a bunch of the combat theater bloggers (and Baldilocks ;-D) ought to be required reading for everyone under the age of 25 and all college professors on federally funded colleges (kind of an intellectual draft).

[Tully]

It's OK to look for intellectuals on college faculties, Wayne, but don't try to extend that into a search for intelligence. Some missions really are impossible.

What our hostess said in the original post. Abso-[expletive deleted]-lutely.

[wayne]

LOL!!!

[Eric]

FYI:

To flesh out the reference ...

The U.S. Military Veterans of Columbia University (MilVets) is an official student organization of Columbia University in NYC. I'm the current VP.

Our website:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/usmilvetscu/index.html

As far as I know, we are unique as a student-veterans organization.

[Maggie]

White flag Democrats!

[justin]

Justin, One has to dig for the good news or positive reports. I demonstrated this using the NYT as an example on this thread (near the bottom). Negative things go on the front page, positive things are buried if they are printed at all.

I certainly agree that the media tends to report bad news over good news in any event it covers.