IHT: Iraq War Editorial from a Marine

[KAOSkins]

I thought this was really good. He's right, we need to get over the why's and how's and get to getting it done.

Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/28/opinion/edwest.php)

'Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease."

So said Abraham Lincoln in his second inaugural address, describing a war that put 11 percent of U.S. citizens in uniform and had by that point killed nearly one of out every seven soldiers. That his words are relevant again now is a troubling indicator of America's national endurance.

Continued in link.

[twa]

Thanks...good read

Another section:


Finally, today's debates are not high- spirited so much as mean-spirited. To allow polarizing forces to dominate the argument by insinuating false motives on one side or a lack of patriotism on the other is to obscure long-term security decisions that have to be made now.

The United States is clashing with an enemy who has been at war with us in one form or another for two decades. Our military response may take decades more. We have crossed several rivers, and the United States is hoping that ahead lie streams. But if they are oceans, we should heed Lincoln's call: "With malice toward none, with charity for all, let us strive on to finish the work we are in."

[Mad Mike]

So well said.

That letter in it's entirety should be pinned at the top of tailgate and read before every debate we have here.

[Midnight Judges]

I don't agree with much that he said. He seems to want to forget that the Bush administration chose to start this war based on false intelligence. He thinks there is no point in rehashing how wrong the administration was. I disagree with this brand of logic for several reasons. Namely, you have to learn from your mistakes. If we voters don't learn from our mistakes we're going to have freakin' Jeb Bush for president in 2008 and probably another war. Also, the intelligence community needs to learn from it's mistakes and the entire DOD/intelligence community need to maintain their independance from the politicians.

He says Lyndie England is the most popular soldier and Abu Ghraib is the most popular battle. I thought Abu Graib was a prison, not a battle, and I would say Tommy Franks is the most famous soldier/Troop whatever you want to call him. The Battle of Fallujah and the battle of Baghdad are more well known IMO.

He says most of our troops have moved on from the fact that Iraq did not have WMD's. That's interesting because most of the troops I talked to are in complete denial as to the false intelligence and the exaggerations of Iraq's WMD programs. You can't move on if you are in denial.

He also basically says that he thinks Bush was honest, which is obviously not the case, while making the tiny concession that Bush may not be the most accessable President. I know this guy means well but if we follow his advice we will ignore our recent history and learn nothing from our mistakes.

[Thiebear]

I don't agree with much that he said. He seems to want to forget that the Bush administration chose to start this war based on false intelligence. He thinks there is no point in rehashing how wrong the administration was. I disagree with this brand of logic for several reasons. Namely, you have to learn from your mistakes. If we voters don't learn from our mistakes we're going to have freakin' Jeb Bush for president in 2008 and probably another war. Also, the intelligence community needs to learn from it's mistakes and the entire DOD/intelligence community need to maintain their independance from the politicians.

He says most of our troops have moved on from the fact that Iraq did not have WMD's. That's interesting because most of the troops I talked to are in complete denial as to the false intelligence and the exaggerations of Iraq's WMD programs. You can't move on if you are in denial.

He also basically says that he thinks Bush was honest, which is obviously not the case, while making the tiny concession that Bush may not be the most accessable President. I know this guy means well but if we follow his advice we will ignore our recent history and learn nothing from our mistakes.

The letter must have has some impact: That is the calmest reply you've ever written. :)

[KAOSkins]

He seems to want to forget that the Bush administration chose to start this war based on false intelligence. He thinks there is no point in rehashing how wrong the administration was. I disagree with this brand of logic for several reasons.

I didn't get that at all. I am strong opponent of the fact we went into this war under false pretenses. But that's for another thread and another argument and that's what I think he was saying. (the argument part anyhow)

We are there. Regardless of why, we need to stick it out to a conclusion that serves us well, or the thousands that have died, will have done so in vane. That would be a travesty even worse than the one that got us there in the first place.

It's Memorial Day. Think about the men and ladies fighting for you, even if the reason they went to fight was not right. They can't question it like you can. Not if they're to give you the level of service you deserve. Yet they have fought in the past to let you keep that right.

My personal thanks goes out to all military current and past who have fought for us in war. They fight for our honor, I believe we owe them some.

[Midnight Judges]

I didn't get that at all. I am strong opponent of the fact we went into this war under false pretenses. But that's for another thread and another argument and that's what I think he was saying. (the argument part anyhow)

We are there. Regardless of why, we need to stick it out to a conclusion that serves us well, or the thousands that have died, will have done so in vane. That would be a travesty even worse than the one that got us there in the first place.

It's Memorial Day. Think about the men and ladies fighting for you, even if the reason they went to fight was not right. They can't question it like you can. Not if they're to give you the level of service you deserve. Yet they have fought in the past to let you keep that right.

My personal thanks goes out to all military current and past who have fought for us in war. They fight for our honor, I believe we owe them some.

I guess these three paragraphs are where I got the 'let's not have the WMD debate anymore' idea:


First, in battle you move forward from where you are, not where you want to be. No one was more surprised that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction than were the soldiers who rolled into Iraq in full chemical protective gear. But it is time for the rest of the United States to do what the military was forced to: get over it.

If we can put debates of 2003 behind us, there is a swath of common ground on which to focus. Both Republicans and Democrats agree that we cannot lose Iraq. The general insurgency in Iraq imperils our national interest, and the hardcore insurgents are our mortal enemies. To talk of troop reductions is to lose sight of the goal.

Second, America's conscience is one of its greatest strengths. But self-flagellation, especially in the early stages of a war against an enemy whose worldview is uncompromising, is absolutely hazardous. Three years gone and Iraq's most famous soldiers are Jessica Lynch and Lynndie England, respectively a victim and a criminal. Abu Ghraib remains the most famous battle of the war.

There is a partisan edge to this opinion letter.

I second your sentiments about our troops though.

[KAOSkins]

There is a little partisanship in everything that everybody writes. I really think he attempted to keep it to a minimum. He was speaking from the perspective of a soldier, not a politician. I would bet if asked he would be as po'd as you or I at the faulty intelligence that led his comrades to be killed and injured. Nobody with a shred of intelligence, on either side, could suggest that the system that brought such horrible results doesn't need fixing.

But I really found the thrust of the letter wasn't to point that out, it was to rally us for a specific cause. To produce an outcome here to make the wasted lives have purpose. We need to be rallied. :2cents:

[Mad Mike]

Midnight, that was a sad, sad, response. :doh:

You just dont get it do you? Everything the man said went right over your head. You just went right back to your, one track, Bush is satan, partizan BS.

It's atitudes like yours in the face of such a brilliant, well thought out letter that make me physically ill. It's attitudes like yours that make me doubt that this nation has a future.

[Midnight Judges]

Midnight, that was a sad, sad, response. :doh:

You just dont get it do you? Everything the man said went right over your head. You just went right back to your, one track, Bush is satan, partizan BS.

It's atitudes like yours in the face of such a brilliant, well thought out letter that make me physically ill. It's attitudes like yours that make me doubt that this nation has a future.

I fully understand everything the guy said, simply don't agree.

I disagree with the guys assertion that we should pretend everything is OK with our leadership when we are in an unnecessary war. His entire premise is "now that the guy I voted for screwed things up royally, let's not point fingers." Sorry but this article is partisan, no doubt about it.

Don't know why you would get physically ill from hearing a different POV. Maybe you should go get an opinion on that.

[Mad Mike]

I fully understand everything the guy said, simply don't agree.

I disagree with the guys assertion that we should pretend everything is OK with our leadership when we are in an unnecessary war. His entire premise is "now that the guy I voted for screwed things up royally, let's not point fingers." Sorry but this article is partisan, no doubt about it.

Don't know why you would get physically ill from hearing a different POV. Maybe you should go get an opinion on that.

Your the one who cant accept a differnt point of view. Your just too blinded by your own bias to see it. To you, anyone who you dont agree with is "in denial". You think you know everything but you don't. To you Bush is an evil man who went to war for profit. To those of us in the real world hes just a guy trying to do the best he can. He's made good and bad moves along the way. To those of us in the real world, we can have a rational debate on the merits of the war and see valid arguments for both the pro and con, STRICTLY on the basis of what is best for national security. Some of us understand that the future of the nation may well ride on winning the war and winning the hearts and minds of the millions of Iraqi citizens who want their new democracy to work. Some of us feel that we can debate the merits later. but RIGHT NOW we need to focus on WINNING.

The soldiers message is simple. WE ARE IN IT - WE NEED TO WIN IT. That is all he is trying to say. Too bad you are too blind to see it.

[#98QBKiller]

I fully understand everything the guy said, simply don't agree.

I disagree with the guys assertion that we should pretend everything is OK with our leadership when we are in an unnecessary war. His entire premise is "now that the guy I voted for screwed things up royally, let's not point fingers." Sorry but this article is partisan, no doubt about it.

Don't know why you would get physically ill from hearing a different POV. Maybe you should go get an opinion on that.



I don't think he's saying that we should pretend that everything's ok. He's saying that it's too late to not start the war and that we must clean up the mess that we made and he's right.

This doesn't mean that the war was a good idea or even that it was justified. It simply means that there's a job to do and it must be done. We can trash the Bush administration all day but it's not going to get us anywhere...let's leave that up to the history books ;) .

[stevenaa]

I fully understand everything the guy said, simply don't agree.

I disagree with the guys assertion that we should pretend everything is OK with our leadership when we are in an unnecessary war. His entire premise is "now that the guy I voted for screwed things up royally, let's not point fingers." Sorry but this article is partisan, no doubt about it.

Don't know why you would get physically ill from hearing a different POV. Maybe you should go get an opinion on that.


All he is saying is we need to focus on where we need to get, because the end goal is too important to sacrifice over partisan bickering. He pointed out faults from both sides.

We are there now, and you just can't get past how we got there. As a result, you and those of your ilk jeapordize the end result because you place the focus on that instead of what we need to be doing to reach our goals.


Let's suppose that President Bush came out and said he lied about the WMD's, and he just used that as an excuse to get the go ahead. Does that lesson the importance of being successful in Iraq now that we are there? Should we then just do an about face and pull completely out?

[CurseReversed]

lets just put sadam back in power and put bush on trial will that make you happy?

[skinfan13]

It's atitudes like yours in the face of such a brilliant, well thought out letter that make me physically ill. It's attitudes like yours that make me doubt that this nation has a future. trust me mike, this nation has a future; its whatever we make it and God-willing it will never be dominated by the poles, but by general consesus as it always has been. people who can never apreciate what people have to say and always revert to a single argument for everything have no inteligent thought process, like Bush, or like some liberals who cannot get past blaming Bush for anything that goes wrong or always point fingers rather than fixing a problem. republicans as wel have lost a true identity, some have become something very bizare indeed, while some like me just shake our heads in disgust and say, "so this is how we take the leagacy of the Greatest Generation and completely destroy it?" i shake my head indeed and wonder to myself; this country certaintly has a future, what will become of Freedom indeed, will it remain as the founding fathers wanted it? as every american up to this pint has wanted it? or do we want to alter ourselves so as to destroy wha this country stands for in the name of this country? i wonder what ourfutue will be like mad mike, i really do

as for the editorial, well the sheer brilliance is obvisouly a Marine quality;)

[Seabee1973]

I don't agree with much that he said. He seems to want to forget that the Bush administration chose to start this war based on false intelligence. He thinks there is no point in rehashing how wrong the administration was. I disagree with this brand of logic for several reasons. Namely, you have to learn from your mistakes. If we voters don't learn from our mistakes we're going to have freakin' Jeb Bush for president in 2008 and probably another war. Also, the intelligence community needs to learn from it's mistakes and the entire DOD/intelligence community need to maintain their independance from the politicians.

He says Lyndie England is the most popular soldier and Abu Ghraib is the most popular battle. I thought Abu Graib was a prison, not a battle, and I would say Tommy Franks is the most famous soldier/Troop whatever you want to call him. The Battle of Fallujah and the battle of Baghdad are more well known IMO.

He says most of our troops have moved on from the fact that Iraq did not have WMD's. That's interesting because most of the troops I talked to are in complete denial as to the false intelligence and the exaggerations of Iraq's WMD programs. You can't move on if you are in denial.

He also basically says that he thinks Bush was honest, which is obviously not the case, while making the tiny concession that Bush may not be the most accessable President. I know this guy means well but if we follow his advice we will ignore our recent history and learn nothing from our mistakes.


Most of our troops actually expected to be gassed by there Army The actuall March to Baghdad was supposed actually planned to take about a year maybe longer

[#98QBKiller]

trust me mike, this nation has a future; its whatever we make it and God-willing it will never be dominated by the poles, but by general consesus as it always has been. people who can never apreciate what people have to say and always revert to a single argument for everything have no inteligent thought process, like Bush, or like some liberals who cannot get past blaming Bush for anything that goes wrong or always point fingers rather than fixing a problem. republicans as wel have lost a true identity, some have become something very bizare indeed, while some like me just shake our heads in disgust and say, "so this is how we take the leagacy of the Greatest Generation and completely destroy it?" i shake my head indeed and wonder to myself; this country certaintly has a future, what will become of Freedom indeed, will it remain as the founding fathers wanted it? as every american up to this pint has wanted it? or do we want to alter ourselves so as to destroy wha this country stands for in the name of this country? i wonder what ourfutue will be like mad mike, i really do

as for the editorial, well the sheer brilliance is obvisouly a Marine quality;)



:applause: Well said.

[Midnight Judges]

You guys seem to be saying "let's stop bickering about why we went to war so we can focus on winning the war." I'm sorry but bickering is not going to lose this war for us. The media can not lose the war for us. The war does not depend on me or the media or what I am saying on some message board, so to imply that I or "my ilk" are preventing us from winning the war is simply false. I am but a spectator. The war will be won by our troops and Iraqi troops if anything.
Besides, we already won the real war in Iraq. Saddam is gone and we made sure Iraq has no WMD's and they are contained. Their democracy may or may not fail. I hope it succceeds and spreads to the rest of the middle east.

I have never advocated a pull-out. We have no choice but to stay the course, even John Kerry said that.

[twa]

The media and bickering can cause us to lose the WILL to win.
America earned the reputation of not finishing conflicts and weakness ,the proof of that is remarks from those that oppose the US. :2cents:

The struggle against terrorism will not end with Iraq nor Afghanistan,but hopefully those will be the last large conficts.

[skinsbuck]

The media and bickering can cause us to lose the WILL to win.
America earned the reputation of not finishing conflicts and weakness ,the proof of that is remarks from those that oppose the US. :2cents:

The struggle against terrorism will not end with Iraq nor Afghanistan,but hopefully those will be the last large conficts.

Well said, although I have this feeling that terrorism is here to stay. It looks like the best way to attack, for some people. :2cents:

[Midnight Judges]

The media and bickering can cause us to lose the WILL to win.
America earned the reputation of not finishing conflicts and weakness ,the proof of that is remarks from those that oppose the US. :2cents:



I don't understand why you would give any creedance to the remarks of those who oppose us. I never understood why people give a crap about what Osama bin Laden says, or what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says. Frankly, I hate those guys and couldn't possibly care less what they think. Wars are won with good planning, strategy, and killing your enemy, not with rhetoric in the media.

If the war is just, there is nothing the media can say or do to stop the will of the people and the will of our troops. I think some Americans who supported Bush are insecure with this war, and they blame the media for that lack of resolve. The real reason there might be a lack of resolve is because George W. Bush did not have good reasons to start this war.

[DCsportsfan53]

Well said, although I have this feeling that terrorism is here to stay. It looks like the best way to attack, for some people. :2cents:

I'm not saying it's right but it's a logical progression. When a country is militarily far superior, economically superior and has a **** load of nukes no govt can attack you. It's the natural evolution of the guerilla type fighting that worked against us in Vietnam. How do you fight an enemy that has no face and looks like the rest of the civilians. Honetsly, right now it's the only way anyone has of attacking us.

[KAOSkins]

I'm not saying it's right but it's a logical progression. When a country is militarily far superior, economically superior and has a **** load of nukes no govt can attack you. It's the natural evolution of the guerilla type fighting that worked against us in Vietnam. How do you fight an enemy that has no face and looks like the rest of the civilians. Honetsly, right now it's the only way anyone has of attacking us.

It's ironic. We were the first government to use gorilla warfare, against the brits in the revolutionary war. They had to change their tactics from the old school stand in a line and fire due to some country folk with long rifles picking off one of their leaders after another.

If you haven't seen the new discovery channel special on GW - do so. It was a superior documentary.

[NoCalMike]

I'm sorry but using that Lincoln quote is such revisionist history and quite clearly BS in this situation. To say "well gosh, no one knew the conflict would last this long" is an outright lie, during the entire drum beat to war in 2002, every single night on the news channels you could find people basically describing what the situation would be like over there, and for the most part up to now they have been pretty correct. Plenty of sources were predicting that this would be a long drawn out conflict because they knew exactly what would happen once Saddam fell and the borders of Iraq were left vunerable. Plenty of Generals in the army tried to communicate to Bush, the ample amount of troops needed to get the job done right, and suddenly they were "retired"

This editorial was just the same ol' "Don't believe what your eyes see, just listen to what I say" Rhetoric that the Bush administration has been spewing for six years now.

[vinva]

as for the editorial, well the sheer brilliance is obvisouly a Marine quality;)

This can't be from a Marine...it's not written in crayon ;)

[CurseReversed]

You guys seem to be saying "let's stop bickering about why we went to war so we can focus on winning the war." I'm sorry but bickering is not going to lose this war for us. The media can not lose the war for us. The war does not depend on me or the media or what I am saying on some message board, so to imply that I or "my ilk" are preventing us from winning the war is simply false. I am but a spectator. The war will be won by our troops and Iraqi troops if anything.
Besides, we already won the real war in Iraq. Saddam is gone and we made sure Iraq has no WMD's and they are contained. Their democracy may or may not fail. I hope it succceeds and spreads to the rest of the middle east.
Wrong, the media is the only weapon they have that has any effect. The media directly influences the minds of every person on the globe who watches TV or listens to the radio. They use all of the talking points that you and your "ilk"(anti war critics) perpetrate, as propaganda across the middle east and the world. Every media outlet that spews out such headlines as "bush lied to go to war" "Illegal war in iraq" and so on.... actively pushs their agenda and fights, whether intentionally or not, the propaganda battle for them. I can almost guarantee that half of the enemies ranks are filled with those who have been angered and enamored by the bias news that fills their tv sets. Those who have heard anti U.S. headlines and stories so many times that they now view us as the enemy that should be defeated. How many radicals have been turned in just the past five years by the unwilling propaganda arm of the terrorists, we will never know, but we can assume its a substantial number.

[twa]

I don't understand why you would give any creedance to the remarks of those who oppose us. I never understood why people give a crap about what Osama bin Laden says, or what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says. Frankly, I hate those guys and couldn't possibly care less what they think. Wars are won with good planning, strategy, and killing your enemy, not with rhetoric in the media.

If the war is just, there is nothing the media can say or do to stop the will of the people and the will of our troops. I think some Americans who supported Bush are insecure with this war, and they blame the media for that lack of resolve. The real reason there might be a lack of resolve is because George W. Bush did not have good reasons to start this war.

By figuring out the thinking patterns and the reasoning behind it you can best judge how to deal with them.
Saddam for example believed till the end we would not invade,a belief partialy reinforced by our stopping in the first Gulf War and the failure to take serious actions earlier.

Understanding how the leadership in Iran or Korea think will also provide the best way to avoid yet another war.

As for the media...simply ask most soldiers if it affects them to never hear reports of good deeds and accomplishments,and if it has a negative effect on them it quite obviously has a negative effect on us ordinary folk.