The Nam Curse
Combat Doc, a recently return Iraq veteran makes some very good points in his most recent blog post. We all know that America lost the war in Vietnam. It has become widely accepted, that this mainly occurred because the politicians wouldn't let the army win. Politicians damned our soldiers' efforts to be for naught. Combat Doc postulates that this is indeed the same mentality that John Kerry is proposing to bring back, should he attain the oval office. Further he contends that we must not allow this to occur! We must let the war fighting to our military once the politicians have decided to commit them.
Labels: military
posted by G-Man at 11:01 AM
Support our troops, elect a REAL commander-in-cheif, not one that talks to god and Karl for their next move. Bellow is an example of how you LOSE a war.
From Daily Kos
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/28/125420/99
Still blaming the troops
by kos
Thu Oct 28th, 2004 at 16:54:20 GMT
I'm really starting to get tired with a party that wants to absolve Bush of all blame, and pin it on our troops.
Here's Rudy Giuliani's latest:
The president was cautious the president was prudent the president did what a commander in chief should do. No matter how you try to blame it on the president the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?
Bush did the same in the debate, blaming the generals for the shortage of troops in Iraq.
Will they ever take responsibility for their screw-ups? Ever?
And from
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/
October 28, 2004
A SOLDIER'S STORY: "VOTING FOR BUSH WON'T HELP US"
I JUST SAT NEXT TO A VERY TOUGH SOLDIER FROM THE 82ND AIRBORNE on a flight back from Europe. I have been thinking for two days about how to share some of the things he told me without compromising him.
This guy I met is not one prone to talk; he was very serious, very mellow -- and comes from a family of enlisted military men. His dad was in Vietnam.
He has had one rotation in Afghanistan, one in Iraq. He is now in Germany but will soon be transfered back to Iraq. He was at Tora Bora and has seen a lot of Iraq, Afghan, and American dead.
According to him, 75% of all soldiers want Bush defeated in the election and don't care who defeats him; anger and resentment are high. He says that 90% of the officers remain far out of harm's way, from lietenants all the way up -- and that only about 10% of the officer corps has some reasonable concern for the troops. There is general understanding that the officers are hiding in holes, or holding back in well-defended buildings and quite cavalier about sending troops out for assignments and errands that are frequently stupid, poorly planned, and dangerous.
Officers are soldiers too btw. So first you want to say some crap about Bush blaiming the soldiers and then post a quote from Guilliani. How does that logically follow?
Then you move on to some ludicrous opinion piece. First off, let's assume that the writer of this text had indeed had a conversation with a soldier who was disgruntled. That soldier's opinion of what other soldiers is thinking is hardly an acurate reflection of the truth.
Then, I'd like to call the veracity of the entire piece in question. Check this out:
A VERY TOUGH SOLDIER FROM THE 82ND AIRBORNE...
He is now in Germany but will soon be transfered back to Iraq.
At first glance, all seems well and good, but for one small problem. The 82nd Airborne isn't stationed in Germany. They're at Bragg! Sorry but your propaganda opinion piece doesn't hold water.
Your piece goes on further, claiming that the 82nd Airborne was involved at Tora Bora. Despite my best efforts, I can find no mention of the 82nd being at Tora Bora. There were special forces, but that's not the 82nd. Another proof that your piece is horse feces.
::Bzzt!::
Thank you wrong answer, please feel free to try again next time!
He said "he" not "the 82nd" was in Germany. But it is a valid critique to say that his talking to the man is not provable. One has to take him at his word. I've read his posts before and trust him to be truthful. Others may not, that is a judgment call. But I feel that YOUR judgment is rather skewed by what you WANT to be true rather than looking at things in a level headed way to find what IS true.
Here's more on our Great Leader.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_24.php#003827
In President Bush’s 2000 convention acceptance speech, he hit the issue of troop readiness hard.
“Our military is low on parts, pay and morale,” he said. “If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report ... Not ready for duty, sir. This administration had its moment. They had their chance. They have not led. We will.”
Back on December 6th of last year, you’ll remember, the Washington Post reported that in 2004, four of ten Army divisions would not be combat ready for up to six months. Specifically, they would be rated at C-3 or C-4, the Army’s two lowest readiness levels.
Since then, Army internal reporting and a classified Government Accounting Office study of the combat readiness of all US ground forces have further underscored the problem. The Secretary of the Army and others were briefed on the GAO study, which is still under review, earlier this month. Senior uniformed Army officials are, of course, also receiving regular briefings on the situation.
The picture this reporting paints for Guard readiness is, I’m told, considerably more bleak than the December news about readiness in the Army.
Readiness in stateside Guard brigades is so poor because those brigades are essentially being cannibalized – for both men and materiel – to keep afloat brigades that are currently stationed in Iraq.
-- Josh Marshall
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
A soldier with the 82nd gets stationed with the 82nd. You've obviously not been in the military. He doesn't get stationed in Germany as the article claims he was.
As to the readiness of our military. This is a problem brought about by years of neglect under Clinton's less than careful stewardship. That sort of neglect can not be solved overnight. It takes years for the military to get back in shape. Did you forget all the base closures, cutting troops, jerking tanks away from assault units and putting them in HMMWV's all so Clinton could claim he "balanced the budget" (although we all know that he in fact did not)!
I personally saw the devastation wrought on our military by two different Democrats in the oval office. How you ask... I served, that's how! It isn't pretty. No spare parts, skimpy training, etc...
BUT the military has to go when asked to go, whether their budget's been cannibalized to support the welfare state or not. If you don't like the readiness of the troops, thank Clinton and thank Kerry for voting against the money to get these deficiencies addressed.
Yes, party shill, your desperate attempts and bending reality is shrill. WHO is the commander-in-chief? WHO has been for four years? Is there NOONE in the Republican Party who can take responsibility for ANYTHING?
GOP=Grotesquely and Oddly Panglossian.
Closing another transmission from the reality based community.
Ken
So tell me Ken, when did you serve?
"A soldier with the 82nd gets stationed with the 82nd. You've obviously not been in the military."
Unless he is stationed with another organization for training/coordination or tranfers to another organization for personal reasons or even needs of the service and is reassigned to the 82nd for the needs of the service or by his own request. I haven't been able to find a specific 82nd regiment or detatchment in Germany but I know there were riggers there as late as 1995 and 82nd medical personell in training at Landstuhl.
Forward support elements of the 82nd could easily have been and likely were with Special Forces at Tora Bora without the full deployment of the 82nd.
Our military capability was decimated by both parties in Congress in an effort to cash the 'Peace Dividend' check that was percieved to exist after the collapse of the Soviet empire and not simply by one parties President.
|
<< Home