NY Times: Who's Unpatriotic Now?

[DeltAlum]

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.

[texas*princess]

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?

[sugar and spice]

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.

[enlightenment06]

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.

[KappaKittyCat]

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.

[LXAAlum]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
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?

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.

[Munchkin03]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
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.

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.

[damasa]

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?

[greeklawgirl]

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.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by LXAAlum
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.

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.

[DWAlphaGam]

Originally posted by enlightenment06
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.

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.

[docetboy]

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.

[Munchkin03]

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?

[The1calledTKE]

Originally posted by docetboy
.

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.

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.

[damasa]

Originally posted by docetboy


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.

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