News-Record.com

I agree with Mr. Freeman.
There is good reason for the "need to know".

Mr. Freeman, you couldn't be more correct. Most of the people you hear calling for an "exit strategy" are doing so not for the betterment of our military or the Iraqi people, but for political reasons.

As a veteran myself, I know that there have been exit strategies on the table since the moment we invaded Iraq. Thankfully, our military is skilled at adapting to changing circumstances, and I'm sure this exit strategy has changed many times and will continue to change.

Unfortunately, what we have in this country is a lot of people who can't get the Vietnam movie out of their heads when discussing Iraq. They either were part of the anti-war and anti-military movement of the 60s and 70s, or they are children of people who were part of that movement. They have been taught to distrust the military and its leaders and believe that Apocalypse Now and Platoon were actually the way things happened in Vietnam. They would never dream of sacrificing anything to serve their country and don’t understand those of us who did.

What they don’t understand and never will is something that we all are taught in the military: don’t ever lose the element of surprise. Once you do, your mission is doomed to fail.

Mr. Freeman,
I am sure the military has an exit plan as they are the only ones competent to put one together. They also had a plan to win with overwhelming force but the mismanagement by our Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, has put them in a precarious position. The military has never been at fault during this ordeal, it has been the modern day McNamara, and his LBJ (Cheney) who have put our troops into this situation. The military argued for using the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force to be in and out with the political part left to international peacekeeping troops. Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted to go to war on the cheap and they were wrong.
Do not confuse political disagreement with lack of support for our troops. Our military is second to none, and our current President is incompetent and drunk with power.

Deacon - exactly how was an international "peacekeeping" force going to help the situation in Iraq? That is nothing but a political solution, plain and simple, and would not have prevented the terrorists from attacking Iraqis or trying to take over their new government. Were you planning on leaving the training of the Iraqi Army to this "international peacekeeping force"? You praise our military as second to none, yet you plan on having these green Iraqi troops trained by a bunch of French, German and Russian soldiers? I'm guessing you saw how successful this was in the former Yugoslavia and now view this as sound military strategy.

Your comments reek of nothing but second guessing and Monday morning quarterbacking. Your disagreement with the strategy can be traced to your hatred of George W. Bush and anything related to him.

So if I didn't like his position on education issues, that would be because I HATE him?

If I didn't like his position on stem cell research, it's because I HATE him?

If I didn't agree with his position on social security, then that's because I HATE him?

If I didn't agree with his position on any one issue, it is because I HATE him?

Zeke, I am glad you are not in charge of the wire taps or else 68% of the country would be tapped!

Deacon - I'm still interested in how you feel an international peacekeeping force was going to help the situation in Iraq. Care to elaborate?

Ezekiel:

My humble opinion in the early spring of '03 held that the "International Peacekeeping Force" was doing a damm good job of looking for Nuc's and other WMD's.

That has been vindicated by the test of time - and the lack of Nuc's and other WMD's. (Of course they are still somewere, which is why we need to find them and not do what we are doing - which my present humble opinion holds is pissing away our crediblity and resources)

Since the spring of '03, I have learned about the Project for the New American Century, a Cheney, Rummy, Wolf-witz, Mr. Charles Krauthammer, and others, that in 1998 were pressing for an invasion of Iraq, and not until September 20'th, 2001, did they start to make urgent calls for going after Fundmentalist Islamic Wacko's.

JD - what you are talking about and what I am talking about are two different things. You are talking about the UN Weapons Inspectors (which I do believe were compromised by the corruption at the UN and in fact were not doing a good job), and I am referring to an international peacekeeping force that Deacon believes was the correct strategy. The peacekeeping force would have been troops on the ground from a multinational organization to "keep the peace", not just weapons inspectors. I am trying to point out that I believe this would have been a flawed strategy to deploy in Iraq.

I believe the weapons inspectors were a good strategy, but I don't think they were doing their job. They were just for show because the UN had been compromised due to so many people having their pockets lined because of Iraqi oil. Regardless, I think you and I are talking about two different things.

mea culpa, Ezekiel. You were talking about the Coalition of the Willing, the 98% US and British forces, with the remaining 2% there in quid-quo-pro for cash-in-the-coffers.

Zeke,
My point is that our military is not trained as a peacekeeping force, it is trained as a strike force. If our President had been able to convince the rest of the world that this really was a worthy cause, then international (Blue Helmeted) peace keepers could be doing what they are trained to do---police duty. Unfortunately, the Rumsfeld/Cheney/Wolfowitz group thought you just go in, disarm and the flowers would be dropped at your feet. They were the ONLY ones who felt that way and now we have our sons and daughters over there as targets for anti american sentiments.

Oh, Ezekiel, you need to tell me, why do I hate

George Bush just because I disagree with him?

It appears to me that there is some misunderstanding running rampant in this blog. From a pessimistic view point, I do not feel that any form of understanding will take place here Deacon.

That is the most disastrous problem we face today in the USA. Far too many only view the "hard line" measures to make change happen, when compromise will allow the same thing with minimal damage.

Until the time comes when alternative voices will be heard for any wisdom and conscience that are possessed, we are in for a long hard ride.

Shalom

Deac - this still leaves open the question of who was going to train the Iraqi army. Would the peacekeeping force be in charge of this? If so, I firmly believe that we would not be leaving that country in very secure hands. With the training being completed by our military, I feel that we are starting with a good foundation that would not be achieved if we left it in the hands of the blue helmets.

Darryl - compromise and understanding may be nice politically correct words and they may make you all warm and fuzzy inside, but they accomplish little. Look up the name Neville Chamberlain for a prime example. I am a reformed liberal (and former Democrat who voted for Clinton both times) who used to believe negotiation was the way. How much time did Bill Clinton waste in the 1990s trying to negotiate peace between Arafat and Israel? Did all of that understanding and negotiating stop the killing? All it does is delay the inevitable, so the best thing to do is follow the hard line and let those who are going to disagree with you go ahead and disagree. The enemy we face today (I'm talking about fundamental Islam) isn't going to be swayed by understanding and compromise.

Wow, Bill Clinton again.

Ok, Ezekiel, how about Arafat & Menachiam Begin? How's that for peaceful compromise? Only after other forces began to cause military devastation did the compromise cease!

And NO WHERE do I find "compromise" or "understanding" listed as "politically correct" words. If that is believed (which I ascertain from the previous posting), then there is no need for me to even seek that any further.

The human mind is akin to parachutes: Open and wonderful things can be found; Closed and a world of hurt is rapidly approaching!

Shalom

a veteran myself, i can assure you that commanders out in the field or in the fleet know not a whole lot about any exit strategies.

they are told to go to location a and stay there until further notice, more orders will come down the pipe soon.

"Elected leaders provide the onus of leadership. Citizens and patriots provide the onus of following and adherence resulting in the strength of our unity"

I'm sorry, but this is one of the most ignorant sentences I've heard yet. So we citizens aren't to question our elected leaders?

LOL!

Demon Deacon,

Jesus told me that Kofi Anon told him that you evolved from a hot steaming pile of donkey dung.

"as a veteran myself,I can assure you that the commanders out in the field or in the fleet know not a whole lot about exit strategies".

As a veteran myself,I can assure you that the commanders out in the field are not SUPPOSED to know about exit strategies. This information is not given to enlisted personell or officers out in the 'field'. It is irrelevant to them.

"they are told to go to a location and stay there until further notice,more orders will come down the pipe soon."

Again,SOP. Why make enlisted personell and lower ranking officers aware of any timetables for an exit strategy? If they were captured,it would be easy for the ra.. ahem...iraqi freedom fighters to extract this type of info from them as they are not bound by McCain's 'al-qaeda bill of rights'.

Mr.Freeman is correct. The people in charge of the military do have an exit plan. Just because they do not share it with the NY times doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

neo, is that not a change of approach? I seem to recall in earlier blogs regarding this issue, that the stand was that an "exit strategy" was not necessary/needed. Why the change?

Shalom

If the only answer that can be proffered here is that "Clinton did it too", then we can all quit wasting our breath. That was no excuse then and is not now. Wholesale wiretapping of American citizens is wrong! Why was a Quaker Meeting House being tapped?????? That proves that things are out of control. The administration's manipulation of the media is horrid and Bush should have the back bone to admit it! They cried, "Valerie Plame was not a covert agent" when it suited them. Now they are running around saying, "They have jeopardized national security by leaking about NSA wiretaps".
Folks, you can't have it both ways---so which one or both was wrong???????

Neo? Dan? Oak Ridge Runner? Zekey?

Wormer,

You might want to review the terms of service for this forum.

Your statements are really beginning to be over the top. No one here, no matter how conservative or liberal demeans other posters quite the way you do.

Statements like what you write above are not acceptable.

Happy New Year Deac and thanks for thinking of me. I was out of town all weekend and the only computer available was dial up, so I opted out of blogging for a few days.

How did you switch from the topic of military exit strategy to NSA wiretaps? I've seen your posts on this subject a lot lately. As you think it is wrong to do this in any administration I guess you were out on the Capital mall with your protest signs over the last few decades. Perhaps I am wrong about that, but now this issue seems to be dominating your life.

To answer your question, I don't think the NSA was posing on the cover of Vannity Fair magazine as Plame was.

Did Plame appear on the cover BEFORE she was outed?

Just want there to be some consistency without stirring up the term "BUSH-HATER" every time someone has a disagreement with the current administration.

So which is it? Is it okay to out Plame but not to publish news of illegal wiretaps? Or is it wrong to out plame and OK to publish news of the illegal wiretaps?

The word is ILLEGAL, and many, including Republicans, have said that this was ILLEGAL. Cheney did claim it was just reclaiming power for the executive branch that had been lost, but who gave him this power?

I wonder why anyone, besides the military, has any right to know what the exit strategy. With all the leaking that goes on in Washington, you might as well sent a copy to the enemy. The battle lines in this country have been drawn since the 2000 election. There is nothing that Bush does that will every be liked, condoned, or approved of by the other side. It don't matter if it is in the best interest of this country or not, the left will find fault with it. It does matter if a past president from the left tried the same or similar ideas, it will be judged that bush was still wrong or didn't know what he was doing. the left will never agree with right and the right will never agree with the left. both sides look at the same situation differently

bobby, what has happened since 2000 (2001 actually) that Bush has done that has bettered ALL of this country? Just one thing, I do not want to make it too difficult!

At least bobby's posting directs the disdane that some have towards policies rather than the person!

Shalom