How can anyone say they support the troops if

[Toots]

they are not willing to use any and all means necessary to win? If we are engaged with an enemy we need to destroy that enemy as quickly as possible so our troops can come home and be safe. The only reason I find any value in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that so many more lives were saved because of it. We used all means available and we ended the war. Our troops came home and we cheered. That is supporting the troops. The way Vietnam was fought or the way Iraq is being fought in no way supports our troops, and in fact it does the opposite. It endangers them on a continuing basis. The Powell Doctrine which all Republicans applauded in it's inception says Know your mission, use overwhelming force and have a clear Exit Strategy. The Powell Doctrine has as it's very heart the safety and concern for the troops. This post is not saying we should nuke Iraq. If we were actually engaged in a real war though, against a country like Iraq with real soldiers and equipment and they were a danger to our forces then I say eliminate them. With whatever mean necessary. Probably that would never involve Nukes but to support our troops we must be willing to bring the world down upon our enemy. Then bring our troops home and the killing would end. I am for ending the killing and destruction in the quickest amount of time. That is how you support those on the front lines. You get them off those lines...If we as a country are not willing to do that then we need to bring our troops home immediately as they lack full support......."Shit or get off the pot"..

[mike_c]

1. that's one reason this whole "support the troops" mantra disgusts me....

I utterly oppose what they're doing so it's hard to imagine "supporting" them while they do it. The war against Iraq is an international crime against humanity. America should stop committing it. Period.

[Toots]

2. While I agree with your sentiments completely I also recognize a need for an Army.

If that Army is ever needed to actually defend America from a real enemy then there should be no holding back. A draft should be immediately set into effect and every resource the country can muster should be used to end the threat. We should immediately use "overwhelming force" and end the killing before it can really get started. We commit all of our collective energy into ending the war. If we fail to do that then we can not say in any fashion we are supporting those on the front lines for us...

[shadowrider]

4. So you're saying

Al-Qaeda and the Taliban aren't real enemies? I have to clean my glasses because I could have sworn I watched real buildings come down on 9/11.

While they don't have uniforms, they certainly do shoot real bullets and have no problems hiding behind women and children, who to them are expendable and "collateral damage".

If Al-Qaeda and the Taliban aren't real, then exactly who are we fighting over there?

[CJCRANE]

5. There was NO al-Qaida in Iraq

before the invasion and occupation.

On edit: And Bushco let the Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders escape to Pakistan then switched focus to invading Iraq (which had nothing to do with 9/11).

[Toots]

6. No they are criminals

Just as Al Capone was even though he was listed as Public Enemy number one we did not launch all our armed forces against him. Al Qaeda is only a small group of rag tag Arabs living in caves that try to sway world opinion by drastic means. They are not enemy in the sense that our military can or should combat them. It is entirely a police matter and that takes cooperation between other countries. Bush* has isolated the USA in that regard...I suspect you also watched a real building come down in Oklahoma City but we didn't attack another country that had no involvement...That also was a police matter...And you ask a very good question when you ask who are we fighting over there....It seems to be a lot of women and children that are doing the dying....Real bad guys those children. Do they scare the daylights out of you? Have you stocked up on duct tape?

[shadowrider]

7. Point taken

[uppityperson]

10. Thank you for the well written succinct piece.

You were much more polite than I and thank you for posting this.

[Clark2008]

15. I watched two buildings being pulled down.

Physics tells me they didn't just fall into their own footprint from a couple of medium-sized office fires. Steel has to be extremely hot to melt and weaken and there was nothing in those offices that would cause it to get hot. Even jet fuel doesn't produce 2,000-degree heat.

I wish they'd just own up to the fact that they pulled those buildings to keep the tops from coming down on more buildings and people, causing a bigger catastrophe. Extremist religious fanatics may very well have flown planes into the buildings, but they didn't come down as a result of those fires.

However, all that aside - Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It can be successfully argued that al-Qaeda and the Taliban did, but they're in Afghanistan - not Iraq. Of coure, they're in Iraq now, thanks to the "brillance: ( :sarcasm: ) of this administration's idiotic war, though.

[prole_for_peace]

3. i totally agree with you mike_c

this is an illegal and criminal war. as far as i am concerned every person that is killed there, whether american or iraqi, is murdered. there is no justification for any of it. doing "anything we can" to stop it should mean BRINGING OUR PEOPLE HOME and letting the iraqi people make the decisions on how their country should be run rather than our government telling them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Like Vietnam, the war in Iraq is unwinnable - it's already lost.

By every measure - it is lost. And,there is no way to "win" it. Throwing more troops, more bombs, more destruction, more repression, was tried in Vietnam and America lost.

They myth that the military has it's "hands tied" or is being "micro-managed" or "lacks resources" is just that. A myth. The same myth that emerged after the Vietnamese kicked us out of their country.

Hell, even "moderate" Harry Reid has finally acknowledged the obvious.

The way to protect the troops is to bring them home, discharge them, and give them real jobs.

[frogcycle]

9. the fact is

that we cannot foretell the future as to what will happen when we pull out. The Iraq-Iraqi carnage could continue, accelerate, or quiet down.


Plenty of "experts" insist on any one of the three as if they know something.

But any analogy to "real" wars like WWII just does not apply. We can't turn it into a "real" war, so the only "support" is to stop it.

What we do know beyond question is that as we attempt to wage war against supposed "insurgents" we continue to exacerbate the situation through "collateral damage", occasional flat-out war crime atrocities, and generally providing an outside stimulus. I take issue with mike_c's frequent claim that Americans are murdering all the Iraqi's who die in this mess. I do agree that we kill some, and by our presence keep the pot boiling wherein they kill each other.

Al Queda types are doing the same thing. Maybe their atrocities are more often intentional than are ours, but essentially the effect is the same.

Our withdrawal can remove some of the outside stimulus. If those Iraqis who want the killing stopped step up and start talking to each other, they can rally together and fight the other "outsiders." They might not, but we can hope and attempt to encourage that.

Unequivocally, we cannot ramp up and wage all-out war as the OP describes (and I don't think that was the suggestion; I believe I am concurring in the same conclusion). The only thing we could do would be to declare war on Iraq - all of it - and attempt to crush it, like Berlin in WWII or, as the OP references, Hiroshima. Not using nukes, but that sort of wholesale slaughter. Quite simply, we have no reason to do that. There is not a Hitler nor a Hirohito to quell. There is a local unrest that we are most likely exacerbating, and there is some level of Al Queda involvement, that is largely of our making. The claim that "they will follow us home" is spurious beyond belief. The very few who have that inclination or intention are going to try another 9/11 when they can, regardless of whether we are still engaged in the Iraqi civil war. There is no relationship. None.

We did not "lure" all the jihadis in the world to Iraq so we could "fight them there instead of here." We simply created more of them. And most of the ones we created will be crushed by the Iraqi's promptly once we get out of the way. Saddam Hussein's government managed to keep them out. It was all Iraqis! May have been a brutal regime, but it certainly showed that they are capable of clamping down.

The only "support" for the troops that makes any sense is to get them the hell out of there. And in the meantime, while implementing the withdrawal, immediately declare a cessation of hostilities. We should withdraw back to the main bases, exercise proper force protection techniques, and plan the exodus.

I suppose that if the Iraqi government had a specific mission they needed our help with we could entertain providing some sort of support. Like if they identified an Al Queda training camp and wanted to raid it, wanted planning help, air support, maybe even people going along as "advisors."

We should switch to such a posture TODAY. STOP all "missions" to ferret out "insurgents" that are really police actions which effectively support one side or the other in the civil war, and aggravate the other side.

Then we should request summit meetings with the so-called elected government, as well as the various tribal and religious leaders. Purpose of the meetings would be to look each in the eye and say "it's your country - fix it - we're not."

[Toots]

12. That is why cooperation with other countries is so very damn important

IMO the USA is the catalyst for much of the violence occuring. Get the USA out and a UN force with the aide of the Arab League to help settle down the old hatreds. It reminds me of an all white police force beating blacks in Watts during the time of Rodney King and wondering why they won't stop rioting.

[TwilightGardener]

11. It's not a Rules of Engagement question, it's a What-the -Fuck-Are-We

Doing-There question. You seem to recognize that this is an occupation, not a war between armies in which widescale bombings and breakage can legitimately occur, so what is your point? The insurgents and militias are part of the populace, not an organized enemy. Al Qaeda seems to be pretty organized there, but even they are affiliated with Sunnis to some extent. How do we go "nuclear" on their asses if we have to root them out like roaches, without affecting cooperative civilians and infrastructure? This is why we can't win.

[Toots]

13. My point is exactly as you claim

If we can't fully support our troops, and we can't because we don't even have a real enemy, then we must bring them home. NOW...Granted there are now Iraqis that hate America and will do what they can to kill as many as possible until they are driven from their country but that is because we are occupiers. Those Iraqis will not follow the US troops home when we leave. They will have huge victory celebrations and then go on with their lives. They will work out their differences with the aide of other Arab Nations and will eventually become a normal country once again. You must remember this place is the cradle of civilization. They have been around longer than any other civilized nation. They have been around more than five thousand years longer than the USA.

[Don Claybrook]

14. bullshit

Supporting the troops means not leaving them interspersed with a civilian population that they end up shooting at because they have no recourse, or because of mistakes, or because of the incredible pressure they must be under. Supporting the troops does not mean supporting genocide, and you should clarify beyond your "shit or get off the pot" statement.

I've never given much of a fuck about what Republicans cheer and support, but thanks for letting me know about who you would like to pander to. Warmonger.

[TwilightGardener]

16. Read post No. 13, he's not arguing for the war--I initially misunderstood too.