80 Comments

• 1. Bull  |  February 25th, 2008 at 9:57 am

  mark, it doesn’t matter that the story is true or not. people are going to believe what they want to believe.

  the left would rather believe a politician or a news achor than the soldier who is actually doing the fighting for us.

  hell, there are a lot of people who believe that bush actually said that he didn’t care about the constitution, that it was just a piece of paper. THEY BELIEVE THAT! not because it’s true, but because they want to believe it.

• 2. Kahn  |  February 25th, 2008 at 11:13 am

  1/10 of 1% of Democrats have served in the military. They don’t really believe in pitching in to protect the nation. And as a result of their appalling level of participation, they are largely ignorant of the whole subject.

  There will almost certainly be some cut-n-paste answer to this. Almost certainly from a non-veteral ignoramus.

• 3. Darva Conger  |  February 25th, 2008 at 11:31 am

  Might want to read this before you knock Obama’s story.

  There are tons of stories where families had to send supplies to their soldiers in Irag and Afghanistan because they were short.

  http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html

• 4. InDa  |  February 25th, 2008 at 11:37 am

  “1/10 of 1% of Democrats have served in the military.”

  LMAO, keep pulling stuff out of your ass!

• 5. eric  |  February 25th, 2008 at 12:06 pm

  Darva,
  How many of those families sent guns, ammo, or armored Humvees? I’m guessing zero.

• 6. Obama2008  |  February 25th, 2008 at 12:14 pm

  Are you really concerned that America will “turn our government over to a man of such clearly substandard qualifications?”

  You had no trouble handing over the federal government to an obvious incompetent with a record of personal failure and family bailouts.

  Yeah, that would be Bush. But you knew that.

  What you are really concerned with is the real possibility that a Democrat will be president. Being that you place party over country, that is what you are really worried about.

• 7. SteaM  |  February 25th, 2008 at 12:41 pm

  Mark,

  OK, democrat here… ready to address your issue and give you my take on it.

  But I’m not sure what to say.

  You first assume that Obama was wrong about his claim that you refer to. I’ve read that he was right. You claim he was wrong.

  So, we can’t really go very far with that if we both agree that we disagree with each other.

  Next thing you claim that McCain is the more qualified simply because and you don’t give specifics.

  Then you go on to wonder if Americans “are willing to turn our government over to a man of such clearly substandard qualifications?” …. but, Mark, this is simply a matter of opinion in that you already said that you don’t think Obama is “wrong” because of many reasons but one big one is that he is “liberal” and that whole word and it’s political perspective is a “lie” and by itself is “wrong”.

  So, to sum it up, Obama is “wrong” no matter what he does because being liberal is wrong.

  McCain is conservative (depending on who you ask) and therefore he is right and therefore fully qualified to be CandC.

  I disagree.

  Barack will win. Conservatives had their chance and blew it. They got us in this and now we The People will choose our leaders and we will try something new to get us out of this mess, hopefully with some brilliant political and military work we will be able to make it a peaceful transition towards a free Iraq that is not occupied by the United States.

• 8. Darva Conger  |  February 25th, 2008 at 12:43 pm

  Eric,

  I bet many of those families would have sent guns, ammo, or armored Humvees if they could. But all those items are supposed to be provided by Uncle Sugar. But a lot of them weren’t.

  Why? Great questions. And when soliders asked your great military master mind Rumsfeld about such shortages they only got:

  “You have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want.”

  What a hero.

• 9. Zach  |  February 25th, 2008 at 12:48 pm

  Good spin Darva..

• 10. SteaM  |  February 25th, 2008 at 12:51 pm

  I fumbled my point up there, got in a hurry.

  But do you see what I am saying?

  Mark, I just don’t think we can have a discussion if you are just trying to say once again that Barack Obama is not qualified because he is a liberal and liberalism in itself is a lie and wrong.

  Right?

• 11. majoriot  |  February 25th, 2008 at 12:53 pm

  Thanks for lobbing that softball….

  …and Bush’s military experience was?

• 12. eric  |  February 25th, 2008 at 1:35 pm

  Darva,
  How prepared do you think we were when we entered WWII?

• 13. Sunny  |  February 25th, 2008 at 2:11 pm

  eric, I think there was a vast difference between WWII and the war in Iraq. The US was attacked before entering WWII - not the case with Iraq. Iraq has never set foot on the USA. Further, during WWII, American citizens were asked to help the cause by sacrificing goods - gasoline, food goods, automobiles, etc. They were asked by buy war bonds. What sacrifice has the average American made for this war? Only the families who have actually served in the military, we have not been asked to sacrafice anything. We should have never made a pre-emptive attack on Iraq unless we were fully prepared to provide everything our soldiers needed. Poor planning from day one. So, your comparison between WWII and the Iraq war is weak.

• 14. FmrMarine  |  February 25th, 2008 at 2:24 pm

  >>>>>“You have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want.”

  What a hero.<<<<<

  The GUTTED military AFTER EIGHT years of klintoon!

• 15. Darva Conger  |  February 25th, 2008 at 2:31 pm

  Eric:

  Man, oh man, you sure as hell don’t want to compare WWII to the mess in Iraq. It took the U.S. and its allies 3 years, 8 months and 8 days to defeat TWO empires on TWO continents.

  We’ve been in Iraq (and most of our allies have pulled out) 4 years, 11 months, 8 days and we’ve still not defeated the enemy nor secured that country.

  Thank the Good Lord, GWB wasn’t President on Dec 7, 1941.

• 16. John Ryan  |  February 25th, 2008 at 2:42 pm

  You go to war with the citizens that you have, not with the citizens that you want.
  There has been little national support for this war from either those that vote Democratic or from those who vote Republican.
  Recruiting goals have only been able to be met by ever increasing numbers of waivers (30%+) 10% foreign born non citizens, and financial incentives.
  Over 50% of the West Point grads opt out of the Army at their first chance (5th year)
  IF and I say IF in capitals the US Army were all of one political party I would be very much concerned that it no longer represented the ideals of the WHOLE of its citizens.
  Fortunately we have seen that the military does have diverse political leanings. My favorite was the one that showed that the number one recipient of donations was Ron Paul, and number 2 Obama. This was according to filings made to the Federal Election monitors.
  So people like FmrMarine can beat their chest all they want, it will not really impress anyone.

• 17. Darva Conger  |  February 25th, 2008 at 2:43 pm

  “The GUTTED military AFTER EIGHT years of klintoon!”

  90% of the cuts Clinton made in the 1990s were the same cuts Cheney planned when he was SecDef (cutting off production of the B-2 bomber, slashing the Army to ten divisions, etc.)

  Besides, not a single cut Clinton made was carried out without the approval of Congress, which you well know, was controlled by the GOP for much of the 1990s.

  Did Clinton cut the Defense budget? Yes, basically following a plan laid out by a GOP SecDef who just now happens to be the VP.

  And don’t forget, Bush Cheney had 18 months between 9/11 and in the invasion of Iraq to convince the GOP controlled congress they needed a bigger army or more Marines, or more armor, more planes, more whatever.

  Don’t lay the problems of inadequate supplies entirely on Clinton’s lap.

  Plenty of blame to slop on the GOP.

• 18. Sunny  |  February 25th, 2008 at 2:50 pm

  FmrMarine | February 25th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
  >>>>>“You have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want.”

  What a hero.<<<<<

  The GUTTED military AFTER EIGHT years of klintoon!

  First, FmrMarine, you once again are showing your IQ. However, lest you forget, President Clintion had a Republican House and Senate most of his two terms. The military could have only been gutted with the help of Congress. I know you hate to admit that, but grow up, and stop behaving like a 10 year old.

• 19. Mark Noonan  |  February 25th, 2008 at 2:53 pm

  SteaM,

  No, I won’t vote for Obama because he is a liberal, and liberalism is wrong - but even if Obama were a conservative, the plain fact of the matter is that be brings zero qualifications to the office of the President. This doesn’t rule him out as a President, but when contrasted with someone like McCain - who has a great deal of real world and/or executive experience, as well as vastly more legislative experiene than Obama - its not even a question: McCain is the more qualified man to be President.

  Now, you may still choose to back Obama because his ideology is in tune with yours, and I’ve got no problem with that - its your right to use whatever criteria you choose in making your selections; but no matter how you slice it, Obama is not even close to McCain in terms of qualifications - and, most importantly for people making a choice, a record we can refer to as illustrative of how he might behave as President. You’ve got on one hand a solid quantity, on the other you’ve got an unknown quantity.

• 20. eric  |  February 25th, 2008 at 2:55 pm

  Darva & Sunny,
  Where did I make the comparison? I did not. I simply asked the question about our preparation (or lack thereof) before we entered WWII. Neither of you answered my question because I make a good point. It is impossible to be fully prepared for a war. There are too many variables and too many unpredictable situations. War is not static. It is dynamic and the plans change as the conflict changes. If either of you cannot understand that basic notion, then you should not be commenting on our military or foreign policy.

• 21. Mark Noonan  |  February 25th, 2008 at 2:56 pm

  Aside from SteaM, you lefties are desperately keeping off subject…rather than discuss President Bush or the state of military readiness in 2000, why don’t you discuss Obama in 2008 and why he’ll make a better President than McCain?

  Wassamatter? Too chicken to actually back your guy?

• 22. SteaM  |  February 25th, 2008 at 3:04 pm

  Mark,

  We back our guy all the time, you just don’t want to listen because our guys is liberal and liberalism is wrong and a lie according to you.

  But, ok, McCain has more experience (real world? and executive?), according to you anyways, than Obama does. I think you could technically say that he has more real world experience just based on his age versus Obama.

  What I want to know, Mark, what is it that you will like the most about McCain as president?

• 23. Rich  |  February 25th, 2008 at 3:17 pm

  “Thanks for lobbing that softball….

  …and Bush’s military experience was?”

  Way to answer a questin with a question. Bush was in the air guard and was in control of the National guard in Texas. Now answer what type of military experience Obama has that would make him a good commander in chief? ….crickets chirping…..

• 24. Darva Conger  |  February 25th, 2008 at 3:31 pm

  Mark:

  With all respect, YOU are the one that says
  Obama’s story is proving to be pure fiction. The point I wish to make is that there have been reported many shortages in supplies and troops reported in Iraq and Afghanistan. And when said shortages of supplies have been reported we get a SecDef who just dimisses the issues out of hand to the very troops he has taken an oath to support.

  Which brings me to the matter of exp. Yeah, Obama didn’t go into the military. In fact he has as many days in uniform as Cheney.

  Yet people will swear that Cheney had exp for the job of VP (former SecDef, Congress, blah, blah). And his comrade, Rummy, yep plenty of exp, (former SecDef, captain of industry.)

  But what has that exp gotten us? A quagmire. If the surge was so wonderful and a clear example of solid military expertise, why did Rummy fight it so hard. Why did he say month after month we have the right number of troops in Iraq?

  You cannot have it both ways, Mark. Either the exp of Rumsfeld and Cheney is the way to go, or they are incompetents who needed the exp of McCain to show them the “correct” way.

  So Obama has little military exp. If McCain hadn’t gotten the nomination, then your other nominees of Rudy, Mitt or Mike would have been up against the same problem. Not a one of them has served a day in the military.

  So it will be up to Obama to pick a team of advisors that understand military power. It would have been the same damn thing that Rudy, Mitt or Mike would have had to do.

  I suggest Obama leave Cheney and Rummy off that list of trusted advisors who understand military power.

• 25. Sunny  |  February 25th, 2008 at 4:11 pm

  How prepared do you think we were when we entered WWII? eric
  Where did I make the comparison? eric

  So, what was the point of your question then if not a comparision of our preparedness when we attacked Iarq? When a country does a pre-emptive strike on another country, it best be prepared for everything, and especially be prepared to provide all necessary arms, vehicles, ammo and any other support needed for the troops, including rotation to allow the troops to rest and regroup.

• 26. MorrisMajor  |  February 25th, 2008 at 4:13 pm

  Wow, so he doesn’t know the minutae of military procedures, I’m sure neither Bush or most of you and I know it either. But that alone makes him unqualified in your totally unexpert eyes? Here’s a clue: that’s why they have Dept of Defense cabinet people and advisors for.

• 27. Sunny  |  February 25th, 2008 at 4:24 pm

  Mark,
  Obama is not my candidate, however, he does not frighten me as much as he apparently frightens you. One of our most beloved and respected presidents, Abraham Lincoln, had little to no executive or legislative experience when he became president. And yet, he served his country well. The reason Obama does not scare me is because he is a very intelligent man. He appears to be thoughtful and intellectually curious. I doubt that he would ever attack another country without first understanding its culture. If he does become president I would hope that he is given a fair chance to show the American people of what he is capable of doing. He is a man who rose to where he is through his own sweat equity. He never had anyone to get him into an ivy league school, to make grades that allowed him to graduate magna cum laude, to become the first black Law Review president at Harvard University Law School. He has achieved everything due to his own hard work. I also believe that John McCain would make a good president - my only reservation with him is his stand on the war. Anyone who does not have a problem staying in Iraq for the next 100 years is troublesome. What I do like about him is that he is his own man and will never allow anyone like Dick Cheney make decisions for him. But I do look forward the January 2008 when we finally have a new president in power. George Bush has been a disaster.

• 28. plainjane  |  February 25th, 2008 at 4:28 pm

  Obama has a clear vision as to where he wants to take this country. Visit his web site if you have doubts. It is the very lack of old time political baggage that makes him so appealing to most Americans. America is feeling an Obama not beholding to anyone gives this nation the best chance of getting back on the right track. Should Obama get the nod, this election could be another Freshman Senator Kennedy vs Washington baggage laden VP Nixon. The American people were proven right back then and the American people will shine once again this November. 1/20/2009

• 29. SteaM  |  February 25th, 2008 at 4:33 pm

  You know what experience Obama has?

  Constitutional law.

• 30. eric  |  February 25th, 2008 at 4:35 pm

  Sunny,
  Did you even read my entire post #20? Or did you simply ignore the part where I was making a valid point? Apparently, you completely missed the point that it is nearly impossible to be completely prepared for any war - preemptive or not. Again, it is a dynamic situation subject to constant change.

• 31. Darva Conger  |  February 25th, 2008 at 5:18 pm

  Eric:

  Never can be prepared for war? What sort of nonsense is that. In the first Gulf War (you might have remembered that one, the one we won) we were so prepared and our goals were so clear that we destroyed them from the air for weeks and then kicked their asses out of Kuwait in 100 hours. We were totally prepared for that war.

  What about the Cold War? For over three decades our nuke subs plus the bombers and ICBMs of SAC were completely prepared to rain death down on the USSR if they attacked us. The USSR knew that and backed down in Berlin, in Cuba, and during the Yom Kipper War.

  Being completely prepared for an all out counter attack is what kept the Soviets from attacking us all those years.

  Just because war is dynamic doesn’t absolve you of the responsibility to be prepared. Hell, and you call Dems defeatists.

  In the Gulf War we outflanked the Iraqi preparations in Kuwait. In the Cold War we built tons of high level bombers. When they built up their air defense, we trained to fly at low level. When bombers became to vulnerable, we built ICBMs. When ICBMs became targets, we went to SLBMs on subs. Bombers stopped carrying on gravity nuke bombs and when to air launched cruise missiles and so forth.

  It was Cheney and Rummy, your heroes that failed to appreciate the dynamic situation of war. They are the ones that said the war would be over in weeks. They are the ones that dismissed the looting. They are the ones that told General Shenseki he was off the mark when he said more troops were needed in Iraq.

  You can be completely ready for war. The first Gulf War and the Cold War proved that. But even in a changing environment, it doesn’t help if you have “experts” like Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rummy discounting wise counsel from Army generals.

• 32. eric  |  February 25th, 2008 at 5:51 pm

  Darva,
  Are you serious? The cold war was not even a war. It was a standoff with neither side willing to pull the trigger and launch a holocaust of epic proportions. There is no way to say whether we were prepared for an all out conflict with the former Soviet Union because it did not happen.

  In the first Gulf war, I would argue that the Iraqis were ill-prepared (at least not as prepared as our intel had projected) and that led to the lopside, quick defeat. If they were as prepared as we thought, things might not have been so “easy”. Of note, the Iraqis failed to engage in urban warfare in Kuwait city, which could have dramatically altered the course of that war.

  see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

  By the way, there is no need to condescend me. I have only treated you with civility and I expect the same.

• 33. Republican on the fence  |  February 25th, 2008 at 6:37 pm

  What about McCain’s little lying problem?

• 34. FmrMarine  |  February 25th, 2008 at 6:40 pm

  >>>>First, FmrMarine, you once again are showing your IQ. However, lest you forget, President Clintion had a Republican House and Senate most of his two terms. The military could have only been gutted with the help of Congress. I know you hate to admit that, but grow up, and stop behaving like a 10 year old.<<<<<<

  Read this then explain how it is acting like a 10 yo.

  http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/20
  03/4/10/223653.shtml

  or here
  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/894350/posts
  http://www.shotinthedark.info/archives/002887.html

• 35. Darva Conger  |  February 25th, 2008 at 7:06 pm

  Eric:

  I am very serious. I don’t agree with you that the Cold War was not a war. There were times (and I listed them for you, Berlin, Cuba, Yom Kipper War) where the US NOT being prepared, NOT being adaptable to changing strategies would have led to a nuclear exchange.

  I do not agree with you when you say “there is no way to say whether we were prepared for an all out conflict with the former Soviet Union because it did not happen.” That fact that it did not happen is testament to the fact that we were prepared and flexible

  Now this is really strange. You members of the GOP claim that us Dems denigrate our military, but here you are saying the we won the First Gulf War because the Iraqis were simply “ill-prepared.” Wow. Our defeat of the Iraqis had nothing to do with the brilliant air war we waged against them for weeks and weeks. Had nothing to do with the Left Hook Schwarzkopf engineered that surrounded them from the west? Had nothing to do with the blood sweat and scarified of our soldiers and Marines?

  We won simply because the Iraqis were “ill-prepared?” OK. I’ll just have to disagree with you on that one. I’ll just submit that the reason the Iraqis failed to engage in urban warfare is because WE DECIDED not to fight them house to house. Coalition forces decided when to engage, who to engage. We decided to decimate them from the air, to engage them as they retreated back into Iraq. That is what smart commanders do. But to you we won in Kuwait because the Iraqis were a worthless foe and American commanders failed to fight them in an urban setting.

  You’re going to have to use better sources than Wikipedia. Schwarzkopf wrote a book about the war you might want to read.

  You’ve treated me with civility? You told me I had no experience to write about this subject. But then again, you’re the one quoting Wikipedia.

• 36. Under Scrutiny « Th&hellip  |  February 25th, 2008 at 7:10 pm

  [...] More Knocks on Obama’s Afghan Story [...]

• 37. FmrMarine  |  February 25th, 2008 at 7:17 pm

  or

  http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/mhelprin/?id=65000400

  And the author underscores the manner in which the Clinton administration systematically demoralized members of the military, who were overworked and underpaid, “slashing the total active-duty force by about a third and increasing deployments by almost 300 percent”. That said, understandably there were problems with military recruitment and retention during the Clinton years. Bill Clinton was real cad – He left the Armed Forces in ruins for the incoming commander-in-chief to clean up and make whole. Patterson stated that “the Clinton administration inexcusably hollowed out our military capability and has left President Bush with the tab”.

• 38. eric  |  February 25th, 2008 at 7:20 pm

  Darva,
  Again, you hurl insults. I like how you created an insult from thin air to justify your behavior. Typical lib. Plus, you did a nice spin on my post to make it seem as if I was denigrating our military. I have nothing but the utmost respect for our military. Plus, I really like the attack on my source instead of the facts. Another typical liberal tactic.

  I stand by my assertion that the Iraqis were not as prepared as we expected. Was that not in General Schwarzkopf’s book? Or, did not you only read the dust cover. You are an ignorant, condescending (ed. profanity removed by the author). I am through arguing with you. Clearly, you cannot handle a civilized debate without resorting to insults. I bet you are probably a last-worder as well. Stupid (ed. profanity removed by the author) liberal.

• 39. Canuckguy  |  February 25th, 2008 at 7:50 pm

  meow, hiss

• 40. js  |  February 25th, 2008 at 8:08 pm

  About all you have done is spread rumors and gossip Darva.

  “tons” of people send stuff to APO boxes, EVERY DAY.

  That does nothing to reality. All youve done is prove that if there is a crack, someone will smoke it……

• 41. Darva Conger  |  February 25th, 2008 at 9:48 pm

  Eric:

  My mother-in-law got me the Schwarzkopf’s book at a store in Denver shortly after it came out. Has his signature inside and everything. I read it cover to cover. My brother in law served on his staff in Saudi Arabia during the First Gulf War.

• 42. Almiranta  |  February 25th, 2008 at 10:28 pm

  It’s all I can do to slog through the misery and negativity and anger permeating Darva’s posts, not to mention her inaccuracy.

  Take this paragraph:

  “It was Cheney and Rummy, your heroes that failed to appreciate the dynamic situation of war. They are the ones that said the war would be over in weeks. They are the ones that dismissed the looting. They are the ones that told General Shenseki he was off the mark when he said more troops were needed in Iraq”

  OK—First, the SecDef was Donald Rumsfeld, not your sneering “Rummy”. Second, it is your assertion that he and the Vice President “failed to appreciate the dynamic situation of war.” That is a simply goofy statement, as well as the injection of your personal opinion of what either or both of them did or did not “appreciate”. And what the heck is “the dynamic situation of war”? Talk about gibberish…

  You want to talk about “dynamic”? OK. For the entire history of mankind, war was pretty much the same, changing only in the manner in which people were killed. But war was a situation in which one country attacked another country, with the goal of defeating that country’s army so it could assume control over something in or about that country that was deemed to be desirable. Even in the Crusades, which were more about the dominance of a philosophy than mere conquest, the rules were pretty cut and dried. An army won, an army lost, and the winner was evident.

  But the “dynamic” of this new kind of war is entirely different than anything we have ever had to deal with, and yes, Cheney and Rumsfeld DID “appreciate” this “dynamic”. If you could be bothered to actually learn anything about the Department of Defense from 2001 on, about the new parameters established within the Pentagon to deal with the new face of conflict, of the drastic need to totally revamp our entire military establishment, of the changes implemented by people who studied under military strategists such as Thomas Barnett, you might actually have a clue as to what Cheney and Rumsfeld were faced with as the Bush Adminstration took over in January of 2001.

  At that time, the new administration understood—yes, even APPRECIATED—the fact that our military, our models for dealing with international conflict, had to be drastically revamped.

  No longer were our enemies trying to conquer us. War had changed from wars of conquest to wars of perturbation—our enemies were far more likely to want to just injure us, harrass us, “perturb” us, than to try to take over our land or our resources. This was a new model of warfare, and it required an entirely new approach to warfare, which included the ability and willingness to make drastic changes, sometimes on the fly.

  These efforts were just starting to be put in place when 9/11 struck. While you declaim that it is “nonsense” to say we can never be prepared for war, it is abundantly obvious that there was no way to be totally prepared for a war which would, according to all expert predictions, be unlike any war ever fought.

  No desire for conquest. No nation declaring war. No army. No uniforms. No national identity of the enemy. No defined battlefield. Nothing whatsoever in the way of rules—women and children to be equal, or even desired, target, for example.

  And you claim it would be possible to be completely prepared for such a war? And, evidently, that it would be possible to prepare for such a new and unknown model of warfare with the antiquated military inherited by George W. Bush?

  Cheney and Rumsfeld started to ruffle feathers long before 9/11, long before the invasion of Afghanistan, long before the invasion of Iraq. Before we knew how quickly we would be thrust into international conflict, in this new model of warfare, there were a lot of noses out of joint in the Pentagon, and battle lines being drawn between those who understood and supported the drastic revisions Cheney and Rumsfeld had in mind and the old-timers who were fighting for the status quo and the status that quo provided them.

  OF COURSE these latter types would be ready to jump in and criticize when anything at all happened which they could use to back their opposition to the modernization of the United States military.

  This is an odd kind of war, in which really the best we can do when perturbed is to engage in counter-perurbation ( a phrase of Barnett’s which I really like) and to just perturb the hell out of them. We can’t “win” a “battle” because there are no real battles, and no way to tell if we have “won” whatever passes for a battle at any given time. All we can do is make the perturbation efforts of the bad guys so costly to them that it is counter-productive to keep attacking us—and that can always only work for a short time, till one of them comes up with a new way to harass us.

  “Dismiss looting”? What????? What looting was dismissed? Are you talking about the bogus and hysterical claims of the national treasures of Iraq being looted and lost forever, while the callous/ignorant/lazy (fill in the blanks..) Americans stood by and watched? Because that never happened. That has been dealt with. Now, if you think that the Vice President of the United States and its Secretary of Defense were supposed to be frantic about something they knew to be a bogus story, say so. I can’t imagine what other looting could or should have possibly concerned these men.

  And by the way, the actual war in Iraq was over in weeks. Just as we kept troops in Germany, for example, or Korea, long after those wars themselves ended, we are stil in Iraq. How long did we find it beneficial to keep troops in Germany, or Korea, or even Japan?

  The war going on now is not a war FOR Iraq, or WITH Iraq. It is exactly the kind of undifferentiated, previously unknown, free-form conflict discussed by Dr. Barnett, and some of it happens to be taking place in Iraq.

  Not only was it impossible to be truly prepared for such a war, it is still impossible, as the enemy, by definition, by its very structure and lack of structure, can and does morph quickly from one form to another. No established military force in the world can keep up with such a fluid foe. All we can possibly do is be as nimble as possible, learn as much as possible from each exchange, and try to create, as we go, a workable model.

  There will be mistakes. Gee, what a concept—mistakes in war. Who woulda thunk it?

  Thanks to the courage, foresight, and determination of men like Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, and those in the Pentagon not totally entrenched in the old ways that formed their comfort zones, and the analysis of people like Thomas Barnett, the American military has changed so dramatically, in such a very short span of time, that it is far far more able to deal with the challenges of this new type of warfare than it ever could have in the past.

  And citing a disgruntled officer whose nose is out of joint because, when all the opinions had been discussed and weighed and his was not the one accepted, is merely an excuse to find something to carp about.

  The Pentagon is made up of individuals, human beings, some of whom will always disagree to some extent with any decision. If you are so educated about warfare, you have to know the opposition Eisenhower met when he was planning D-Day. Ever hear of General Patton? He was not exactly the epitome of universal admiration. So Shinsecki had an opinion, which was not shared by those making the decisions. Big whoop.

  And of course you know that no decision was just made, unilaterally, by either Cheney or Rumsfeld, or even by both of them overriding the advice of the Pentagon. It’s a convenient fiction, cherished by the Left, but in fact every decision was recommended by experienced military men. Military men, by the way, equipped with full knowledge and information about the events taking place, either in the field or working with those in the field, as opposed to those sitting at desks somewhere second-guessing the decisions. It’s part of leadership, to get all the opinions and advice, to consider it all, and to—in the end—make a decision about which to follow. Which means, naturally, that some will be rejected. And all you can do, after weighing all the expert—and conflicting—advice is hope you made the right decision about which path to take.

  It is just too easy to sit back and take potshots at those people, from comfort and safety—-and ignorance—-of a computer terminal somewhere. And it is easy to see the direction you, Darva, have decided your conclusions will lead you, from your snide and sneering tone regarding those who have served this country so unselfishly.

• 43. Kahn  |  February 25th, 2008 at 10:44 pm

  InDa | February 25th, 2008 at 11:37 am

  “1/10 of 1% of Democrats have served in the military.”

  LMAO, keep pulling stuff out of your ass!

  Sorry InDa - it’s true. You have a different number, produce it.

  300 Million Americans. 35.9% of Americans consider themselves Democrats. 8 million veterans. Last several years the percentage of military identifying as Democrat has been below 15% (actually, 13-14%) Looks basic to me. The numbers are the numbers.

  If you try to find out more, I’ll help. Otherwise I’m afraid you’ll have to accept my numbers.

• 44. Casper  |  February 25th, 2008 at 11:02 pm

  http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2003/cb03-ff04se.html

  According the above source there were 26.4 million vets as of 2003. Your 15% doesn’t include vets that are 65 or older (37 % of the total). If you have percentages on them, let me know.

• 45. Kahn  |  February 25th, 2008 at 11:05 pm

  Active-duty military personnel preferred President Bush to Kerry by about 73 percent to 18 percent. Sixty percent describe themselves as Republican and less than 10 percent call themselves Democrat . Even among the veterans, Republicans outnumber Democrats 46 percent to 22 percent.–Military Times article.

  22% of 8 million is 1.76 million Democrat veterans.

  35.9%. of (about) 230 million adult Americans is 82.57 million Democrats.

  2.13% Of Democrats have served. My mistake. Not 1/10th of 1 percent. 2%. Assuming the estimates are correct.

  2% of Democrats have served in the military.

• 46. Casper  |  February 25th, 2008 at 11:10 pm

  That number made up about 13% of U. S. voters (18 or older). Since your figure includes all Americans including those under 18 (non voters), I”m not sure how valid it is.

• 47. Casper  |  February 25th, 2008 at 11:28 pm

  Kahn,
  OT. In the last two months, I’ve lost two uncles. One a WW II Vet. The other a Korean War Vet. Both stanch Democrats.

  My Uncle Van, who I helped lay to rest this morning, aways identified himself as a Democrat (in a very Republican state). Both will be missed.

• 48. brett michaels  |  February 25th, 2008 at 11:40 pm

  Kahn | February 25th, 2008 at 11:13 am

  1/10 of 1% of Democrats have served in the military. They don’t really believe in pitching in to protect the nation. And as a result of their appalling level of participation, they are largely ignorant of the whole subject.

  Kahn,
  There is a big discussion within the corp about the lack of military service in all politicians…both Republican and Democrat.
  Alot of felt that if there had been more vets serving in congress, then congress would have listened to Gen. Shinseki and not Paul Wolfowitz.

  To this day I will never understand why congress believed Wolfowitz’s testimony over a combat vet’s testimony.

  Do you know why?
  You are ex-military too right?

• 49. brett michaels  |  February 25th, 2008 at 11:44 pm

  FmrMarine | February 25th, 2008 at 7:17 pm

  And the author underscores the manner in which the Clinton administration systematically demoralized members of the military, who were overworked and underpaid, “slashing the total active-duty force by about a third and increasing deployments by almost 300 percent”.

  FmrMarine,
  Has the total active duty force increased since Bush has been in office?
  As for deployments increasing…Do we really need to go there?

• 50. majoriot  |  February 26th, 2008 at 12:17 am

  Deleted - off topic

• 51. majoriot  |  February 26th, 2008 at 12:22 am

  Deleted - off topic

• 52. Kahn  |  February 26th, 2008 at 12:30 am

  Casper. Sorry to hear it. The WW2 Vets are getting slim. The Korea vets are right behind them.

  Brett, The Army is doing these awfully long deployments. The Marines, Navy, and Air Force are not as bad. Though the Marine area is much better now. And the Army area is getting there. One real reason for leaving them in place for a longer period is from what they learned in Viet Nam. There, they swapped out battalion commanders every six months to get their promotion tickets punched.

  In Iraq, there is consistency. Also, units to a slow transition in and out of an area. Actually, though the time away from home must suck - this technique makes sense.

  The military think tanks had been developing this “Network Centric Warfare” concept of which shock and awe was a major part. The military told the DoD how many troops they needed for Afghanistan. But with a handful of Special Ops people, the Northern Alliance took that place back in a hurry. Rumsfeld saw this and applied it to Iraq.

  Unfortunately - Afghanistan was an illusion. We won, yes. But we did not destroy Al Queda and the Taliban. We killed a bunch. But not all of them. Or at least not enough to get their actual mental surrender. THIS was the lesson of Afghanistan and it was missed. But it also wasn’t that apparent either. It’s easy to look back and see it. But not so then.

  As to military? Yes. Semper Fi.

  Grandfather - WW1, survived a gas attack that messed up his lungs.
  Uncles - WW2, USMC, USA Infantry (killed in Normandy), and USA paratrooper - actually, that one was one of the guys portrayed in “Band of Brothers”.
  Dad - Korea, USA, forward artillery observer (during two HUGE Chinese attacks)
  Me and my Brother - Marines
  My sister - Army Guard (and Smith and Harvard)
  My nephew - Iraq, two tours Army Intelligence
  My niece - Kuwait, one tour, Air Force
  My sister-in-law (wifes sister) their mom, Afghanistan - NOW, Navy Intelligence

• 53. majoriot  |  February 26th, 2008 at 12:34 am

  Deleted - off topic.

• 54. Mark Noonan  |  February 26th, 2008 at 12:51 am

  Sunny,

  What would lead you to think that Obama frightens me? A political non-entity with little legislative experience: if I’ve got to put up with a Democratic President, that’s the one I want. We’ll run rings around him. My only large concern - not fear, concern - is that Obama is pledged to defeat in the War on Terrorism…this might buy us a decade of “peace” here in the US, but it would lay up for us quite a cup of bitterness for the future. Many thousands of people - perhaps tens of thousands - will die in America at some future date because a President Obama surrendered in Iraq in 2009.

• 55. Mark Noonan  |  February 26th, 2008 at 12:54 am

  MorrisMajor,

  Its a matter of judgement - being entirely ignorant of the military, Obama should withold comment on military matters or first spend some time learning the basics.

  What Obama’s story reflects is that knee-jerk contempt on the left for the United States military - as if any officer would agree to an order sending a unit out without sufficient ammunition! Obama must think the men and women who command are armed forces are idiots.

• 56. Tractatus  |  February 26th, 2008 at 1:02 am

  What????? What looting was dismissed?

  Christ, you aren’t being serious, are you, ‘Ranty?

  On the unfortunately high chance that you are, look up the context of Rummy’s infamous “freedom’s untidy” quote. HINT: He was talking about the widespread looting that took place post-invasion. The looting that has been correctly identified as something we shouldn’t have allowed. The looting that everybody but you knows about, apparently. But hey, when has ignorance ever stopped you from getting a good rant going–particularly a highly ironic one about how it’s everybody else who has it wrong?

  Better luck next time.

• 57. minordomo  |  February 26th, 2008 at 1:13 am

  No executive experience? If Obama’s campaign organization is an indication of how he will run the country, we’re in good shape. He looked at the challenges ahead, came up with the right strategies and executed them well.

• 58. minordomo  |  February 26th, 2008 at 1:16 am

  “Many thousands of people - perhaps tens of thousands - will die in America at some future date because a President Obama surrendered in Iraq in 2009.”

  Continued military occupation of Iraq will prevent terrorists from coming over here how exactly?

• 59. Mark Noonan  |  February 26th, 2008 at 1:36 am

  minordomo,

  The fact that we haven’t had any attacks here since is at least one indicator that being in Iraq has had a positive effect on American national security.

  And I’ll let you get away with that just once on this blog - there is no occupation of Iraq; we are there at the express invitation of the legitimate, Iraqi government.

• 60. Kahn  |  February 26th, 2008 at 2:53 am

  minordomo - Libya stopped developing atomic weapons because of Iraq. You know, the guys who killed enemies all over Europe? Repeatedly shot at our planes in the Med? And who blew up a 747 over Scotland?

  And though it’s debatable, Iran stopped also. What with having American troops to their south (on ships), west, north, and east. You know, Iran? The ones who seized our Embassy? Attacked their enemies all over Europe? Mined the Gulf? Those guys?

  AND - there’s a good chance that our tendency to stomp our enemies played a part in North Korea’s decision to stop working on atomic weapons. You know, North Korea? The guys we’re actually technically still at war with? Who’ve killed hundreds of Americans and Koreans - SINCE the Armistice? Who counterfeit our money? Who send commandos into the South? Who kidnapped dozens (or more) of Japanese and help them for decades? Those guys?

  Any of this ringing a bell?

• 61. uffy  |  February 26th, 2008 at 3:19 am

  I find those who belive Obama’s rhetoric which is steeped in fantasy as not only amusing, but also pathetic. The DEMS are so fractured they will believe in fairy dust and accept someone who has done NOTHING in the US Senate. A man so unsuitable for the job that he wants to talk to the enemy and bomb allies. A man who refuses to speak about specifics and says “go to my website”. McCain is going to crucify him.

• 62. Hemlock for Gadflies  |  February 26th, 2008 at 3:57 am

  Nothing is more entertaining than some dumbass who can’t spell “competent.”

  Wait a minute — “competent” is misspelled in Mark Noonan’s post.

  In for a penny, in for a pound, but I’m sure you’re right on target with the whole Obama’s-not-”competant” thing.

• 63. minordomo  |  February 26th, 2008 at 6:24 am

  “The DEMS are so fractured they will believe in fairy dust and accept someone who has done NOTHING in the US Senate.”

  Looks like you didn’t spend too much time trying to find out and just bought into the first soundbite somebody ran by you.

  Here’s a bit more info about Obama:
  http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/obama-actually.html

  And if you really want to know what Obama has done in the Senate, there are also government websites that may be helpful to you.

  “A man so unsuitable for the job that he wants to talk to the enemy and bomb allies.”

  What is wrong with opening up a dialogue? And which ally do you think he wants to bomb? Source?

  “A man who refuses to speak about specifics and says “go to my website”.”

  And the website is where you’ll find the specifics… duh. Telling you where to find the specifics is not “refusing to speak about specifics”, it’s the opposite.

• 64. Kahn  |  February 26th, 2008 at 9:08 am

  Hemlock - thanks. We needed a proofreader. Because finding a spelling mistake makes everything else wrong.

  What an asshole. (Did I spell that right?)

• 65. uffy  |  February 26th, 2008 at 10:23 am

  minordomo: Way to dodge the specifics. You certainly bought into Obama’s “air speak” for airheads. Grow up!

• 66. MorrisMajor  |  February 26th, 2008 at 11:26 am

  So, basically the drift in this post is that we should elect people that the military approves of or we are all traitors?

• 67. The Frito Pundito  |  February 26th, 2008 at 3:18 pm

  God, the contortions needed here to justify trashing Obama: he has little “legislative experience” - well how much legislative experience did George Bush have? Uh, none (ditto for Reagan). But he doesn’t have any “executive experience” Well, how much does John McCain have? None (and Bush’s executive experience, all six years worth, was in a largely ceremonial position). Well, he doesn’t have any military experience. Do you guys really want to go there? See Bush and Reagan above. This is taking the IOIYAR argument to absurd extremes.

• 68. freejack  |  February 26th, 2008 at 3:28 pm

  “The question before us…. is whether or not we, the people of the United States of America, are willing to turn our government over to a man of such clearly substandard qualifications?”

  George………W………Bush………twice!

• 69. Darva Conger  |  February 26th, 2008 at 4:18 pm

  Hey Alm:

  It is a silly argument to use our continued presence of troops in Germany, Japan and Korea as justification for us being in Iraq. In none of those nations were we losing 30 – 100 soldiers a month trying to keep warring factions of Germans, Japanese or Koreans from blowing themselves up five years after we defeated them
  Believe me if we had been losing 30 – 100 soldiers per month in Japan in 1949 just to keep the peace between factions in Japan MacArthur would have stern measures to quell the violence (and he could have done it since the Army had hundreds of thousands of occupation troops) or the American people would have demanded we pull out.

  Since Bush/Cheney has not equipped the force with adequate numbers to do the job, the American people will just say pull out.

  General Senseki was not just some officer who had an opinion, he was the Chief of Staff of the Army. And you know what the “big whoop” is? He was right. Rummy was wrong. We needed a bigger force than Rummy thought we needed. Wow, imagine that. A career army officer who knows something about the army. So for all your dismissive blather about “entrenched” Pentagon types not embracing this new military of Rummy, it was the PROFESSIONAL SOLDIERS who knew what we needed in Iraq not Bush buddies appointed to civilian offices.

  And your comments about the “non-looting” were very effectively shot down by Tractatus, so I will leave it at that.

• 70. felix the cat  |  February 26th, 2008 at 4:54 pm

  Lets see this guy get trashed.
  http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080226/D8V289BG1.html

• 71. FmrMarine  |  February 26th, 2008 at 7:29 pm

  >>>>>Believe me if we had been losing 30 – 100 soldiers per month in Japan in 1949 just to keep the peace<<<<<

  I love you marxist’s getting your hair on fire over the deathe of 4000 soldiers involved in a two country war.
  Meanwhile back at the ranch!

  # An estimated 16,692 persons were murdered nationwide in 2005, an increase of 3.4 percent from the 2004 figure.

  1.25 MILLION abortions per year = murdered.

  There were 16,694 alcohol-related fatalities in 2004 – 39 percent of the total traffic fatalities for the year.

  There were 1545 MURDERS is washington DC between 2000, 2006
  “Bush lied and people” ya de ya.
  Hell I think the klintoon, enemy - body count rivals that of Afghanistan.

• 72. felix the cat  |  February 26th, 2008 at 8:19 pm

  Former is the operative word Marine, wouldn’t you agree? Why don’t you conflate the number of clothing stores, fire stations and dog houses to the topic of this thread. Unless of course, dead American soldiers mean nothing to you because they are expendable. Just another number to be exploited and used as a comparison to your the rest of your inane contentions.
  Take a hint from the first act of Full Metal Jacket.

• 73. Darva Conger  |  February 26th, 2008 at 8:23 pm

  Felix, no, no, no. Clearly General Casey is just desk sitting Army toad like Alm said above without real combat time and therefore doesn’t know about the transformational nature of what this new war is all about. Oh wait, he is the Chief of Staff of the Army. Oh, wait, he was leading our troops in Iraq before the surge.

  Oh wait, hmmmmm, the GOP will figure out someway to trash General Casey for backing Obama’s story.

• 74. Darva Conger  |  February 26th, 2008 at 8:29 pm

  Former Marine:

  Wow. If a liberal brushed off the deaths of 4000 brave American soldiers and Marines you guys would demand he be burned at the stake. But we’re just Marxists because we care about how many have died in a war in Iraq that has zero with finding Osama bin Forgotten.

  Amazing. I do know there are probably 4000 families who have their hair on fire about losing their son or daughter. Man, I cannot believe your hard heart.

  I for one support our actions in Afghanistan 100%. If I was in charge, I’d redeploy the 130K we have in Iraq to Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban.

  But then again, Afghanistan sits on no ocean of oil.

• 75. Faceplant  |  February 26th, 2008 at 9:41 pm

  Deleted - off topic.

• 76. brett michaels  |  February 26th, 2008 at 11:18 pm

  Kahn | February 26th, 2008 at 9:08 am

  Hemlock - thanks. We needed a proofreader. Because finding a spelling mistake makes everything else wrong.

  What an asshole. (Did I spell that right?)

  Kahn,
  Why have you never chastised Keefer for that same behavior?
  I’m just curious about the dichotomy. Or perhaps I am mistaken and you think Keefer is an A-hole also.

• 77. minordomo  |  February 27th, 2008 at 1:00 am

  uffy at comment 64,

  “Way to dodge the specifics. You certainly bought into Obama’s “air speak” for airheads. Grow up!”

  You weren’t asking about any specific issue, you were pretending there were no specifics to be had. I pointed you to boatloads of specifics.

  If there’s something specific that you want specifics on, then please be specific.

• 78. Almiranta  |  February 27th, 2008 at 4:12 pm

  77 posts. I went back to examine the original thread post and found it was actually about Obama making allegations based on what he said he was told by an army captain. Most of the conservative posts have focused on the general themes of how the military function and how likely the story is to be factual. There are of course side trips into more general military-oriented fields.

  The Liberal responses seem to be pretty much insult-oriented, with the mandatory Bush-bashing, with the anticipated hysteria of Obama-worship from his adoring groupies.

  I am personally attacked because I tried to figure out what some Lib was referencing and guessed at the wrong looting incident—sorry, the crystal ball was in the shop. But it seemed to justify, at least to the always-intractable Tract, a full-out attack on my intelligence and honor. I don’t take it personally—everything of his I have read indicates a generally surly and sneering personality, so when it is directed at me instead of the Bush Administration or religion or whatever else chaps his donkey, it’s no big deal.

  Again, par for the course.

  And again, and par for the course, the actual question of whether or not Obama was truthful, as well as the corollary question of whether he truly believed an untruthful source, is buried under the avalanche of distractions mounted by the Usual Suspects.

  Who are, as we have noted, even more vicious in their attacks, even more organized, even more prepared to mount full-scale battle over the most minute of details, ready to rumble over every single word, comma, or inflection in their obsessive need to destroy their enemies.

  Why? Is the actual issue too threatening to address, or are you all just so addicted to using any compilation of any words posted by any conservative as a stimulus to snap into attack mode?

  On our side, we just want to view interesting news items, discuss them, feel the freedom to offer what we might think we have to contribute regarding any bit of information or insight—you know, engage in civil discourse.

  This is not very compatible with the scorched-earth take no prisoners mentality of the increasingly rabid Lefties who infest this site like fleas. It is an apt comparison, as they are annoying as hell, relatively harmless, and can pick up some very nasty elements when feeding on diseased hosts.

  I suggest that, again as usual, the Lefties have offered nothing more than a lot of emotion, none of it pleasant, in their determination that this is really just a place where they can deposit thier nasty little insults and attacks at will.

  Some of us have an off-blog discussion group going, nothing formal, but a place where people can have a reasonable and adult discussion of various topics without the constant shrieking for attention we have to put up with here, regarding the ongoing temper tantrums of the rowdy radicals. Sometimes it’s politics, sometimes not, but it is a welcome change from the sheer nastiness exhibited here by the Libs who then bleat that they just don’t understand why they get no respect.

• 79. Faceplant  |  February 27th, 2008 at 9:04 pm

  So. Marky gets to make claims about how Bush deserves credit for the US not having another terrorist attack since 9-11. When I point out his hypocricy with regards to Bill Clinton, he deletes it.

  You’ve learned from your authoritarian heroes it seems.

  You, brought it up Marky. I was responding to your statements. But I guess trying to stifle dissent, and disagreement is pretty much par for the course.

• 80. Cum Gay Cum Shot Cum Whor&hellip  |  May 16th, 2008 at 9:02 am

  Cum Gay Cum Shot Cum Whore

  I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view