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.