NY Times: Who's Unpatriotic Now?
 

This will be really long. Sorry. I've been worried about a lot of things since the beginning of our Iraq adventure -- and it would appear that many of my concerns are coming to fruition.

The following is from the New York Times. When you read things like this without the "Love it or leave it" mentality, here is some food for thought. This is not a matter of patriotism, it is a matter of of fact and fiction -- and a matter of numbers. And, no, before anybody brings it up, there is NO disrespect or lack of support for our serving troops. In fact, just the opposite -- a huge amount of concern for them.

You might recall that many of us had serious misgivings about the REASONS for this war -- allegations which have still not been proven.

Our military performed (and continues to perform) brilliantly on the battlefield. But, we suffer from a dramatic lack of a firm and working plan to rebuild Iraq -- or as many say, to win the peace.

For the past couple of days thoughts of reinstating the draft have resurfaced. The Secretary of Defense is talking about shifting more responsibility to the National Guard and Reserves. The question becomes, then, if the "standard" mission of those components are increased, and there are more and more long form callups -- how will that affect recruitment for them?

If we go back to the draft, will the armed forces return to the state they were in before the "all volunteer" Army -- where it is made up of mainly minority youth with little or no education? The "average" Army infantry grunt in Vietnam was a nineteen year old minority member with a high school education or less. Given the reinstatement of the draft, it is likely the education level and efficiency of our Army would be, possibility dramatically, decreased.

Will women be drafted this time? Should they?

Our military deaths in Iraq have now passed those of the Mid-East war of 1991. Military families who expected their serving members to be gone a "short" time are beginning to complain. During World War II, once you were deployed, if you were not injured or killed, you were there for the duration -- until we won. In Korea, many GI's were gone for two years or more. In Vietnam, the tour was about a year -- and many military experts cite that as one of our biggest problems there in terms of perceived lack of agression. The idea was simply to somehow get through that year, and get the hell home with no real concern about victory or lack thereof. And, while we are really efficient warfighters, with remarkabel weapons and firepower in set piece battles, we aren't nearly as good at guerilla actions as proven by our experiences in Southeast Asia. The kind of actions we're facing now in Iraq.

We were in Vietnam for ten years. We could be in Iraq that long. Will the American Public support that?

Have we stretched our reduced military to the point where it cannot (our could not) defend us if another crisis (perhaps Africa) breaks out? We have more units deployed than our doctrine calls for. Our "reserves" (including regular forces, not just Reserve and National Guard formations) here at home are far past the depleted point.

Finally, consider the economic impact on the country for now and the future. I'm no economist, but simple common sense drives me to ponder how the rapidly expanding debt will affect the country. Isn't it simple logic that you can't spend billions of dollars on a war, and simultaneously cut taxes? That defies simple logic. The figures would seem to agree.

So, I'm not an expert. I'm not a Hawk or a Dove. I have no issue with patriots -- in fact, just the opposite. To repeat, this is not an issue of patriotism, but rather one of simple logistics and numbers.

And, in the end, whether we are involved in this for the right reasons. Ridding the world of Sadaam is a worthy goal, but at this cost in lives and treasure?

Oh, and, at least it appears that we haven't done that yet. Nor have we found any Weapons of Mass Destruction.

What I am is worried.

Who's Unpatriotic Now?
By PAUL KRUGMAN


Some nonrevisionist history: On Oct. 8, 2002, Knight Ridder newspapers reported on intelligence officials who "charge that the administration squelches dissenting views, and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary." One official accused the administration of pressuring analysts to "cook the intelligence books"; none of the dozen other officials the reporters spoke to disagreed.

The skepticism of these officials has been vindicated. So have the concerns expressed before the war by military professionals like Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, about the resources required for postwar occupation. But as the bad news comes in, those who promoted this war have responded with a concerted effort to smear the messengers.

Issues of principle aside, the invasion of a country that hadn't attacked us and didn't pose an imminent threat has seriously weakened our military position. Of the Army's 33 combat brigades, 16 are in Iraq; this leaves us ill prepared to cope with genuine threats. Moreover, military experts say that with almost two-thirds of its brigades deployed overseas, mainly in Iraq, the Army's readiness is eroding: normal doctrine calls for only one brigade in three to be deployed abroad, while the other two retrain and refit.

And the war will have devastating effects on future recruiting by the reserves. A widely circulated photo from Iraq shows a sign in the windshield of a military truck that reads, "One weekend a month, my ass."

To top it all off, our insistence on launching a war without U.N. approval has deprived us of useful allies. George Bush claims to have a "huge coalition," but only 7 percent of the coalition soldiers in Iraq are non-American — and administration pleas for more help are sounding increasingly plaintive.

How serious is the strain on our military? The Brookings Institution military analyst Michael O'Hanlon, who describes our volunteer military as "one of the best military institutions in human history," warns that "the Bush administration will risk destroying that accomplishment if they keep on the current path."

But instead of explaining what happened to the Al Qaeda link and the nuclear program, in the last few days a series of hawkish pundits have accused those who ask such questions of aiding the enemy. Here's Frank Gaffney Jr. in The National Post: "Somewhere, probably in Iraq, Saddam Hussein is gloating. He can only be gratified by the feeding frenzy of recriminations, second-guessing and political power plays. . . . Signs of declining popular appreciation of the legitimacy and necessity of the efforts of America's armed forces will erode their morale. Similarly, the enemy will be encouraged."

Well, if we're going to talk about aiding the enemy: By cooking intelligence to promote a war that wasn't urgent, the administration has squandered our military strength. This provides a lot of aid and comfort to Osama bin Laden — who really did attack America — and Kim Jong Il — who really is building nukes.

And while we're on the subject of patriotism, let's talk about the affair of Joseph Wilson's wife. Mr. Wilson is the former ambassador who was sent to Niger by the C.I.A. to investigate reports of attempted Iraqi uranium purchases and who recently went public with his findings. Since then administration allies have sought to discredit him — it's unpleasant stuff. But here's the kicker: both the columnist Robert Novak and Time magazine say that administration officials told them that they believed that Mr. Wilson had been chosen through the influence of his wife, whom they identified as a C.I.A. operative.

Think about that: if their characterization of Mr. Wilson's wife is true (he refuses to confirm or deny it), Bush administration officials have exposed the identity of a covert operative. That happens to be a criminal act; it's also definitely unpatriotic.

So why would they do such a thing? Partly, perhaps, to punish Mr. Wilson, but also to send a message.

And that should alarm us. We've just seen how politicized, cooked intelligence can damage our national interest. Yet the Wilson affair suggests that the administration intends to continue pressuring analysts to tell it what it wants to hear.


I'm sorry for the length of this, but many of these things have been nagging me since the inception of this action. I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong in my concerns.

But I think worry that history and experience will prove I'm not.

DeltAlum, I definately agree with some of your concerns.

It also bothers me that now Pres. Bush may want to send troops on a 'peace-keeping' mission to Africa somewhere.

I am not a military expert, but generally speaking, I think that would definately stretch our military a little bit too thin.

It's all over the news that most Iraqi people don't even want our troops there anymore.. they just see them as an 'occupation'.

I also definately agree that we lack a "firm working plan" to rebuild Iraq, and I think that is what is going lengthen the troops' stay there.

How can they be on "peace keeping missions" when there is no "peace" to be kept?

Thank you for posting this. I think this article illustrates a lot of the worries that many of those opposed to the war had, and how the concerns have remained largely unaddressed by the government. And now, with the possible Korean threat and the African "peace-keeping" mission . . . I'm starting to worry even more.

if there's a draft, I ain't fightin'. Simple as that.

I think this Iraq situation is not getting any better and we need U.N. support ASAP. Once we get U.N. support then and only then do I think we should consider sending troops to Liberia. And can we PLEASE pay some attention to the North Koreans who, unlike Saddam Hussein, are actually building nuclear weapons

We have a poor president and no other candidate to challenge him. We better do something quick because all empires must fall at some point in time. I would rather acquiesce power and bow out gracefully than to fall apart.

I agree with your concerns, DeltAlum. This is, as always, a hard one. Our position in the world does give us a certain responsibility to other countries, and I'm glad to see Saddam go, but who or what will go up in his place? Didn't we put Saddam in place? Didn't we create Osama? Half of the human rights violators in the world were put in place by a U.S. government that was fearful of communism or some such thing. It was downright irresponsible to put them there in the first place, and it was even more irresponsible to make such a mess of fixing things.

It really disturbs me that those who question our government now have their patriotism called into question. I thought that it was not only our right, but our responsibility as Americans to keep our leaders on their toes. Isn't that what a democracy is?

I saw a bumper-sticker on a car the other day. It said "REVOLUTION BEGINS AT HOME."

I couldn't agree more.

Re: NY Times: Who's Unpatriotic Now?
 

I think that we HAVE become good at guerilla warfare - the quick victory in Afghanistan was as much good on the ground guerilla action as was the air campaign.

We've been in Iraq (heck the Persian Gulf region) since basically the Iran/Iraq war broke out - I was part of the tanker escorting brigade in 1988-89 - so I think militarily that beats out our Vietnam commitments.

Our losses have surpassed Gulf War I, true, but, remember, all the political haymaker's being thrown before either GWI or II about "tens of thousands of body bags" being the outcome?

I highly dought we'll see a draft anytime soon - it's political cyanide for anyone that proposes it seriously. The military is constantly changing and adapting (much more faster these days than when I was in, too) - and the all-volunteer force has been fantastic thus far.

Re: NY Times: Who's Unpatriotic Now?
 

This is not something I'm worried about, for these reasons...

The SSS reformed the draft laws sometime after the Vietnam War...with the college deferment shortened to ONLY one year (college seniors can complete their education). This actually worried some of my friends' boyfriends post 9/11, when they realized their socioeconomic situation wasn't going to save them from war the way it saved their fathers.

The idea of a draft sucks and I don't think it would happen, but if it did, the education level and efficiency would not decrease dramatically. The vast majority of NCOs have only received a high school education--not too far from the Vietnam-era status quo. If anything, you'd have more men who had attended college at some point in a drafted army than in a volunteer army of NCOs.

I don't know what other people feel about the whole North Korea situation but who else is worried?

If you are worried about a draft, I feel that if we have any type of military involvement with N. Korea a draft will probably be reinstated. I've heard figures that the N. Korean army has a force in the area of 4.5 million with a concentrated force of nearly one million just above the DMZ between N and S Korea.

I'm sorry but that just scares me to death. That's not to mention the possible nuclear threats that N. Korea poses.

What are your thoughts?

I'm petrified of the potential threat that North Korea poses. If they continue to enrich uranium and build nuclear arms, I've read that they have the capability of striking Hawaii and even the West Coast.

While I'm glad that Saddam Hussein is out of power--I don't think anyone will deny that he was a genocidal tyrant--I want to know why we aren't hearing an outcry about North Korea. In my opinion, Kim Jong Il is the one we should be losing sleep at night over.

Re: Re: NY Times: Who's Unpatriotic Now?
 

My only question is, have we really acheived a victory in Afghanistan? We've certainly put a dent in the terrorist networks, but it's likely that Bin Laden is still alive and he and his group were certainly the main catalyst for that campaign.

That's not to argue that we aren't much better at special operations than we were during Vietnam. We learned a lot from our mistakes there without a doubt.

This is what scares me most. I hope that some of the democratic candidates start to step it up, because we need to get Bush out of office and get someone who can clean up this mess in ASAP. If Bush stays there another 4 years, I hate to think of what else he will screw up.


As for the North Koreans, I don't know why everyone is twiddling their thumbs (or sticking them up their asses, more likely) and letting them blatently make nuclear weapons. They shot blank missles towards Japan just to see if they could. Yet, somehow, that is not as threatening as Saddam Hussein was when he was just sitting in his palace. Oh, wait, I forgot, Kim Jong Il didn't try to kill our president's daddy. :rolleyes:

What exactly has Bush screwed up? Who going into this thought this was going to be easy and peace would take a week? Last year, everyone was worried this war was going to take an extremely long time, talking about how loyal the Republican guard was to Hussein and how loyal the people are. Everyone thought we would still be fighting now. Instead, we were able to successfully take Baghdad and REMOVE SADDAM HUSSEIN FROM POWER. We have captured or killed many of the Top 53 wanted Iraqi's, including numbers 2 and 3, Hussein's sons, responsible for the torture within Iraq. We are well on our way to trying to establish peace and a new government in the country. Yes, our soldiers are still at danger and getting killed. There are still problems in the country - who thought that all Iraqi's were going to put down arms??? The Bush Administration has accomplished an awesome military victory for the recordbooks...the quickest it has ever taken to remove a government from such a large area.

President Bush is a great president, and is honest. Many people just don't want to admit it, and the democrats are trying to grasp onto whatever they can to pull the president down.

Hey, if this war was all about taking Saddam Hussein out of power, why have American corporate interests taken over? Baghdad has its first McDonalds...coincidence, no?

Docet of course u think Bush is great because your a republican. Get used to it not eevryone see's him as good. Arguing who is good or who is better well never make anyone change their minds because by this age most people have devloped their own beliefs.

Do you personally know Bush? I am almost certain you do not so you do not have the credibility to call him honest.

We still have not found the any "Weapons of Mass Destruction." This on top of many other things that I will let you all read in a great article from the Shepherd Express.

Ten lies to win your support for the war

Aren't we?

The troops are still there and American servicepeople are still being killed and wounded. The huge battles are over, the war isn't.

I would feel a lot better about the administrations decisions if even one weapon of mass destruction had been found.

Perhaps they still will.

There is no question in my mind, however, that the President decided on the course he wanted to take, and was not above "bending" alleged intelligence to send us on that course.

I've lived during a lot of administrations, and televised every president since Nixon. Whether President Bush is "great" is something for history to decide.

Jimmy Carter was not seen as a great president at the time, but is now considered one of the great American Statesmen of history.

Bush's legacy, though, will be greatly affected by this military action and the economy which the war is certainly not helping.

I'll decide, as will most people, with the benefit of hindsite.

What he said!

The smoking gun ladies and gentlemen: The same democrats who are criticizing WMD now and Bush's comments are the same ones who earlier in the year and last year proclaimed how Saddam's progress has always been underestimated, that he does have WMD, and that we must take Saddam out. Funny how their views suddenly change when they see an opportunity to strike at Bush.


Senator John F. Kerry (D, MA), January 23, 2003:
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an ooppressive regime...He presents a particularly grievious threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for Weapons of Mass Destruction...So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

Senator Bob Graham (D, FL), December 8, 2002:
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and hashad for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production oand storage of weapons of mass destruction."

Senator Hillary Clinton (D, NY), October 10, 2002:
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members...It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Representative Henry Waxman (D, CA), October 10, 2002:
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), October 10, 2002:
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggresively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in the development of weapons of mass destruction."

Senator John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002:
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Senator Robert Byrd (D, WV), October 3, 2002:
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. WE are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of achemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

Senator Ted Kennedy (D, MA), September 23, 2002:
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Al Gore, September 23, 2002:
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Senator Carl Levin (D, MI), September 19, 2002:
"We begin that witht he common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the Uninted Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Letter to President Bush, Signed by Senator Bob Graham (D, FL) and Others, December 5, 2001:
"There is no b=doubt that...Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the conver of a liit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, November 10, 1999:
"Hussein has...chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Representative Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), December 16, 1998:
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Dasle, John Kerry, and others, October 9, 1998:
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary ations (including, if appropiate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sities) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, February 18, 1998:
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Madeleine Albright, February 18, 1998:
"Iraq is al ong way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

President Clinton, February 17, 1998:
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posted by Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction program."

President Clinton, February 4, 1998:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

Just because we personally want to know where thw wmd are doesn't have anything to do with the politicans. I never claimed they didn't say those things.

On the Clinto quote it's funny the Republicans attacked Clinto when he sent cruise missles at Iraq in 98, said it was because of the impeachment thing. Now they think he was right? lol

Just to clarify myself personally: I supported Clinton's many day-long wars into Iraq and always felt he did not go far enough...even in 1998 during the Lewinsky scandal.

The Democratice Party is a reactionist organization with no real political agenda. Don't worry about Democratic vs. Republican, this is about real people's lives

Disarmament and invading a country and throwing out their government are two different things.

Tomorrow in PoliSci 101, the Judicial Branch.

Funny, because our attempts at disarmament failed. The next step? In order to ensure disarmament, we remove the government from power, and disarmament is accomplished.

Tommorrow in Common Sense 101, Thinking about something for more than a second...

We didn't try very hard - he was itching for a war. Now all we've done is taken the "weapons" out of the hands of the government (where we knew who we were dealing with) and left them to rogues.

And btw, what is your hero doing in North Korea?

Being someone who has voted for as many Republican as Democratic presidents -- and being registered in neither party, I can say:

Amen.

Thought you might be interested in this...
 

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=3142325


Think Tank Gives U.S. Homeland Security 'D' Grade

Wed July 23, 2003 09:36 AM ET
By Deborah Charles

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration has been slow to tighten domestic security and has failed to spend enough on some essential programs, a center-left think tank said on Wednesday.

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), which has ties to the Democratic Leadership Council, gave the government a "D" grade in its report card on homeland security and said much improvement was needed.

"In spite of satisfactory results in a few areas, taken as a whole, the Bush administration's efforts to protect the homeland have been surprisingly lax and inadequate," the institute said in its report.

"The Bush administration has not brought the same energy and attention to homeland security that it has brought to overseas military efforts," it said. "In short, President Bush has failed to fulfill his promise to make homeland security his top priority."

Six months after the creation of a new department charged with protecting the nation and nearly two years after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, the country is still not well protected, the report said.

PPI gave the government a failing grade on a comprehensive national threat assessment which has been mandated by Congress but has yet to be completed.

Until the assessment is completed, the federal government is forced to operate under the assumption that every facility in every state is equally at risk of being attacked.

"Without this information, the administration and the state and local governments who rely on Washington for threat evaluation have been flying blind," PPI's report said. "Many of the administration's other failures on the homeland security front can be tied to this failure."

PPI gave the administration an average grade on coordinating inter-agency intelligence but gave it an "F" for failing to integrate "terrorist watch lists."

"One of the most egregious problems is a failure to develop an integrated watch list," said PPI vice president Rob Atkinson. "It's emblematic of their problems, because it's so easy to do."

PPI's report said the administration had done well in improving aircraft security and gave the administration an "A" for nuclear power plant security.