No truer words were ever spoken then those of this writer. We as a country, not our troops, are losing our will to protect ourself. Our politicans are spineless cowards and liars. Had "WE THE PEOPLE" really supported the troops and all of our so called elected politicans had really done what they could to help and support the troops, things would be a whole lot brighter in Iraq and else where in the world.

The mix message that our so call politicans have sent to our enemies is nothing more then encouragement for them to keep fighting our troops and keep trying to kill as many as you can because that will turn public opinion against the war. Then we will be force to cut and run. Which is what a lot of you want now. This is what happen in Viet Nam and Korea. The pacifist and the so called media have done everything they can to lose this war, along with on whole party, the dem. And I must add, with the help od so rep. too.

It was said a long time ago, "This country will never be destroyed from without, but from within." Truer words were never spoken. I know I going to get the normal respond from the lwb. So be it, you'll arethe ones I talking about anyway.

DD, I hope you find something wrong with my spelling or wording, so you have something to fuss about. JDR, you can find a few more web sites to show your point, Carol D, As always you disagree,But at less you"ll do it with taste, the others have learn that yet. But in the end, I blame you and your side for the harm you have done this country and our troops. A lot of their deaths are on you hands for the aid and comfort that you have give the enemy. You will never agree or except what I have said, no matter, but you do have to live with the fact that you were on the terrorist side more that you was this country. God forgive, I won't.

THE FOLLOWING IS A CONTINUATION OF THIS THREAD:

http://blog.news-record.com/staff/letters/archives/2006/12/war_in_iraq_is.html#comments

...

Neo: I checked out the link you posted about the 11-29 mini-victory, and could not find it reported in several major papers including the N-R (at least as far as internet searches will go). This troubled me, so I sent this Letter to a couple papers - and will advise their response:

--

Dear Editor:

A friend recently forwarded to me a new link reporting several “significant Iraq mini-victories” - “good war news” that I do not recall as reported in your paper. Perhaps I missed the article, but perhaps also for some reason it was not published, e.g., it was simply not on the AP wire or wasn’t picked up for another reason or ???.

Here are some recent examples:

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7867&Itemid=21

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7856&Itemid=21

My friend says not loudly reporting this type of news indicates a slanted media. I’m trying to understand if this is a valid point.

I’ve been defending the mass media as generally fair, telling him that while we do occasionally hear this kind of “good war news”, the reports showing US Military and Iranian civilian casualties are simply proportionate to the “significant [?] Iraq mini-victories” – in other words the Coalition Victories are in fact reported, but readers may not see them the due to the overwhelming volume of Iranian civilian casualties.

Can you comment?

Thanks

Bobby:

How can you dump on those that from the get-go have said “The Bureaucrats are mucking this up. Our politicians are spineless cowards and liars” (I think we said Chicken Hawks)

NOW you say “Had "WE THE PEOPLE" really supported the troops and all of our so called elected politicians had really done what they could to help and support the troops, things would be a whole lot brighter in Iraq and else where in the world.”

Seems you’re asking for cake on the table and eaten too.

==

As for Abu Ghraib ... the only way to handle that in Iraq mind would have been to take the “misguided soldiers” – plus perhaps a dozen in their command structure – and publicly execute them. It could be argued the damage they caused to America’s claim of Justice would more than offset any negativity from limp wristed liberals in the USA. But we wallowed –
we means you too dude, at least as far as I know.

==

You blame “[the other side] “for the harm you have done this country and our troops” BullS#it. Look at the ink on you thumb – red from the lever you pulled in support of the chicken hawks that did something R-E-A-L-L-Y S-T-U-P-I-D. Surf the blog notes you have written. Learn what Osama know from the get go – that provoking America into a war on his 3000 followers, slow steady attrition would turn public opinion against the war. Then we would cut and run.

Go to the Mirror, Boy.

Ayman al-Zawarhihi, in 2003 upon USA’s entry into Iraq:

"The Americans are facing a delicate situation ... If they withdraw, they lose everything, if they stay, they will bleed to death."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/zawahiri.htm

"Islamic revolutionaries such as Osama bin Laden are well aware that the United States cannot be defeated militarily. Their goal, then, is to effect political change inside the United States in order to defeat the country's will to sustain its involvement in the Muslim world.

"With the support of the American people, the Bush administration has ... amplified the very policies that have caused so much angst among Muslims."

BOLD: "If the Bush administration is unsuccessful in its interventions of Afghanistan and Iraq, it will fail to marginalize the Islamic revolutionary movement and will find itself in a poor strategic position ... "

[BOLD THIS:] "Overstretched and exhausted, Washington could be forced to retreat back to its core and inadvertently deliver on many of al-Qaeda's demands."

[BOLD THIS:] "Therefore, it is critical for the United States to rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq in a manner that wins the support of its people and helps to boost the United States' image in the Muslim world."

[BOLD THIS:] "By failing to stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq, and if it is unable to alter the perception of itself favorably, the Islamic revolutionary movement will grow and become a greater threat to the U.S. homeland and its interests abroad."

http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_printable&report_id=234&language_id=1

Maybe the next generation will have the wisdom to select its wars more carefully; to know when to fight, when to rely on diplomacy, when to mind its own business, and when things have got so scewed up that there is no solution that is worth the cost in lives and resources. And maybe by the next generation, reactionaries will have seen through the Bush administration's now abandoned propaganda and lies and realize that Iraq had nothing to do with our being attacked, by which I guess Mr. Rorrer means the 9/11 attacks.
If so many Americans of all persuasions hadn't been suckered in by Bush's BS and had listened to the few intelligance experts who were trying to get the truth out, we might have avoided this mess and could have concentrated on making Afghanistan a secure quasi Islamist democracy. Now, we can't count on having a vialble nation in either Afghanistan or Iraq.
And yes, Bobby, proofreading carefully is a hard skill to master.

I agree with the writer's point about Abu Ghraib. I think the soldiers should have been dishonorably discharged and left it at that.

My problems with the letter is the expectation that Americans are just supposed to fall in lock-step with any decision our government makes, whether we agree with it or not. We are individuals who have the right to our opinions.

I do believe there are folks who would never support any war under any circumstances but I think they are in the very small minority. Most folks in this country would support a war that was for our defense, our freedom, and our security. When you get into fighting wars for those things for a people of a foreign land, you better make a strong case.

The problem with this war is that many believe we went to war under false pretenses. We were sold on the idea that Saddam might nuke us at any time. I'm not saying Bush lied. I'm just saying that what we thought to be the case, turned out to NOT be the case.

Part of the problem was the administration's failure to convince the people of this country that this war was necessary. Even still, a majority did believe we should have gone to war. And I believe that the majority did not stop supporting the war because they couldn't stand the casualties or because they are cowards.

The majority stopped supporting this war when it became apparent that there was no defined exit strategy and there were no weapons of mass destruction found. And when it went from a war to what it is today. What we have today is NOT a war against the leaders of Iraq. It's an occupation.

I'm just not convinced that having our soldiers in Iraq as sitting ducks for terrorist attacks from terrorist who are streaming in from other countries in the middle east is the most effective way to conduct a war on terror.

That doesn't make me a wimp. It just means I'm using my head. Something the current administration hasn't done enough.

This coming from a guy who voted for Bush twice simply because I couldn't stand the other choices.

One last comment.

Vietnam was nearly 40 years ago.

The world and our enemies have changed.

So why are we still trying to fight wars the same way?

From the very beginning I have been an outspoken critic of Bush and how he (his administration) decided to take this nation to war with Iraq. I said from the get go it was a done deal long before he "announced" it to the American public. It was clear to me (and many others) that Iraq was not our greatest threat but Afganistan (and Ossama) was. (I invite anyone who challanges my statements to do a little archiving.)

I supported an attack on Afganistan. But we screwed that up; no mission accomplished there. Iraq was a diversion from that fact. Again, as I have said many times, Bush miscalculated his little smoke screen. He and he alone must live with the fact he has brought this nation to the brink of ruin. And the blood of innocent American and Iraqi citizens is on his hands.

His inability to admit to making a mistake is common to folks with his personality disorder. Now we are all going to pay for the rest of our days. In addition, our children and grandchildren are going to suffer because of one collosal miscalculation and the character flaws of one individual. (Yes, the buck does stop at the desk of the commander-in-chief.)

I have read these blogs for weeks and followed the discussions about what to do now, how we can get out of this mess with the least damage. I have read many speculations about what would happen if we withdrew from Iraq. I have yet to read one rational reason why we shouldn't.

When all is said and done, what will be will be. I say get our butts outta there pronto. Don't make any major announcements, just withdraw. Let the chips fall where they may. We were wrong to interfere in the government of that country. Let's own up to it and take our lumps. At least we would show some dignity.

As the Nike commercial goes, "Just do it."

nitpicker,
The question is, why do we have to make the same mistakes over again?
**********
Bobby,
It would be nice if you could explain away your mistakes as "spelling errors", but unfortunately they are, for the most part, grammatical errors. I have no doubt you actually speak the way you post, but your grammar is atrocious.
No one is or will question your patriotism, but you have been duped into believing a propaganda mill unlike any the world has ever seen. The only thing lacking for this administration is 40 ft tall pictures of Bush on major buildings around the country. Think about it.

For those who missed it, here is one from the current generation:
http://www.acorn-online.com/news/exec/view.cgi/24/7107

And here is one for the burned out hippies of the 60s who aided and abbeted the enemy:

http://www.lcompanyranger.com/weapons/colonelbuitinpage.htm

So, neocon, as long as we all follow orders and defend the rights we shouldn't use lest we encourage an enemy, in other words, as long as we keep our mouths shut and be good Americans, everything will be just peachy keen?
We got sold a bill of goods in Vietnam, and we have bought another in Iraq.
I support getting the troops home as soon as possible or giving them a military mission. Doing neither is simply foolish and above all wasteful of their lives and honor. If your cited source doesn't feel supported by those who oppose the war as Bush has mismanaged it, that is his lack of understanding for how our nation works. He's following orders, not defending anyone's rights and freedom.
Well, at least this time you managed not to blame gays for your lack of insight.

DoubleD:

Be careful about criticizing "spelling and grammatical errors". HOPEFULLY I do not actually speak the way I post, 'cause in here, both my spelling and grammatical are atrocious.

Chris:

I think you've summed it up for me ... get 'em home or give 'em a military mission.

It's probable Neo and Bobby feel that way too, with 100% emphasis on "give 'em a military mission" - but all that falls back on to What does Victory Look Like? Can one have Victory without a Mission?

Neo and Bobby and Bubba and Worm et al ... PLEASE define the mission .. give the boys something definative to do, and we'll support it.

We've been asking for years - literally.

Neo - loved the second link, only hope Dan comes in to comment on this: "Disillusioned with the reality of Vietnamese communism Bui Tin now lives in Paris."

let me paraphrase the rest:

"If [Bush] had granted [the military's] requests [Osama & company] could not have won the war. Our operations were never compromised by attacks .. [a]t times, accurate .. strikes would cause real damage, but we put so much in ... that enough men and weapons to prolong the war always came out the bottom. If all the bombing had been concentrated at one time, it would have hurt our efforts. But the [war] was expanded in slow stages under [Bush] and it didn't worry us. We had plenty of time to prepare alternative routes and facilities. We always had stockpiles ... Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9AM to follow the growth of the antiwar movement [which] gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses."

Hey we agree ... but it's not the limp-wristed lefties you should be arguing with .. it's the RED LEVER POLITICAL ASSES THAT HAVE HAD CARTE BLANCHE FOR 5 YEARS AND HAVE SCREWED IT UP IN A WAY THAT WOULD MAKE JOHNSON PROUD.

... So how about a mission, Dude. For God's sake give us a freaking mission.

"they hate us because of out freedom". Yea, that's a mission .. not.

Nobody strike a match in here. The gay and 'mission' straw men will explode.

The fact is your rhetoric is doing harm to those involved in Iraq by giving the enemy encouragment and hope to carry on. Ditto Bin and N. Vietnam.

Bobby is spot on: they are winning from within.

Neocon, have you noticed how easy it is to read those on the left. JDR an DD live up to all I said they would do. They love make excuses for their actions and those THEY voted for. The ball is now in their court. Let see how their side handles the security of this country against those who want to destroy it. Everything that happens now is their doing, not Bush's. They now control the purse strings.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree.

It's clear we are not winning solely BECAUSE "you're guys" fuched up - initially by going in with a pea-brain-plan but ultimately enemy encouragment comes from a "Leadership" more concerned with their own continuation than doing what was needed for the American peoples.

The current chorus is a new phenom. Most gave Bush and Crew everything they needed ... years of everything they needed .. and regardless of whether they lied in the beginnning, they sure lied about how things were going, ignoring realities on the ground and running the war only for political advancement. It went from a "Damm, no WMD'S? OK - let's wrap this up", to, "Let's make sure we get relected."

Place your crap where it belongs.

yea ... too bad I'm not a lefty, Bobby - just not a blind neocon like you and Rambo.

.. but you're probably right, - the new Congress and what-was-I-think'n' Bush-43 will probably take the mess you and yours created and make it ultimately worse.

You are correct again, Bobby. Not only do you know what they will say, but you know who is going to say it.

When they cannot refute the facts that they are helping (and did help) the enemy, they tell you to "look in the mirror, dude"...how convoluted.

The N. Vietnamese Col. now resides in Paris... Huh? WTF??? So he was all wet when he praised Hanoi Jane for giving the N. Vietnamese hope and encouragment??? Again..WTF???

JDR, same typical "blame someone/the others" just a different day. Are you surprised at that? It seems that the first posting was a "baiting" which was devoured. However, when the "baitees" devoured the "baitors," the "baitors" reverted to the standard response.

JDR, you and Yvonne are stating now what was done so in the beginning of this fiasco. It seems that some still do not remember/recall/listen. It is that mindset that is causing our society to repeat mistakes.

Will our society ever learn?

Shalom

JDR, I did put the crap where it belongs, look under your shoes, you'll find it. And you are a LWL,(leftwing liberal), but if you don't want to claim that, I understand. How about socialist, communist, or the new term progess. Same dance, just a different tune.

Although I don't always agree with JDR (music taste one major exception) I do find him to be a thinking person when it comes to expressing his opinions. In many ways, I think he is a moderate who leans to the left as I am a moderate who leans to the right. Plenty of room for disagreement without labels.

James,
I too, wish Dan would weigh in on this, as the far right needs a medium to far right for balance! LOL! (He's too busy archiving (stalking) my posts:)
********
Bobby,
Can you not see the mess W has made? If not, then you are the type person Hitler and Mussolini loved to have---follower at any cost.
*******
Nitpick,
If you are a moderate, then I am a Whig.

Darryl,

Let me get this straight. Bobby set some bait in his first post. JDR & DD took the bait, and in their responses set even better bait for neocon & Bobby? Doesn't that make JDR & DD the real Master Baiters?

DD, Can you not see the hatred that you have for Bush has poisoned you. It doesn't matter what the blog is about, at some point, you have to throw Bush into it. It has consumed you on everything. It is a standing joke to some of us to see you twist and turn to blame Bush for what ever the subject is. For your own sake, get a life. You have a major problem blaming Bush for everything that happens in this world. Too bad you can't be as honest about your leaders of your party when they screw up. Instead, you make excuses for them and condone it. That makes you a hypocite.

Bobby, please list the ways I, or any who oppose the war in Iraq, have aided the terrorists. You have made a broad statement with no back up arguments. Hard to take you seriously.

Nice to hear from you Yvonne. As usual I think you have made some excellent comments. JDR, DD, Darryl, Den and I have said the same things over and over. Some posters don't let facts, reason, or common sense affect their views.

If America had responded in WWII to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor by attacking India how long do you think that American support for FDR and his war would have lasted. America will support pointless wars (Grenada & Panama come to mind) as long as they are relatively painless but it's hard to ask any people to fight on year after year in a cause that they can't understand.

The problem with Vietnam and in Iraq is that the American people don't get the connection between those wars and any national purpose. Unlike the writer I have no qualms with American resolve when it matters.

I just wish we had leaders with the wisdom to know when it matters & when it doesn't.

Let me get this straight: So the party that was out of power, the folks who said the war is wrong, and the media that covers the war are the reason that Iraq's condition is "grave and deteriorating", and that makes them traitors to their country.

Is that what some of you are actually asserting?

Let's all put down our differences during this time of Peace.

Dear Friends and Relatives:

I have the distinguished honor of being named to the committee to raise $5,000,000 for a monument to George W. Bush. I am contacting you in hopes you will be willing to contribute to this noble cause. But first, a little about what the committee has been doing to date.

We originally wanted to put him on Mount Rushmore until we discovered that there was not enough room for two more faces. We then decided to erect a statue of George in the Washington, DC Hall of Fame. We were in a quandary as to where the statue should be placed. It was not proper to place it beside the statue of George Washington, who never told a lie, or beside Richard Nixon, who never told the truth, since George could never tell the difference.

We finally decided to place it beside Christopher Columbus, the greatest Republican of all. He left not knowing where he was going, and when he got there he did not know where he was. He returned not knowing where he had been, decimated the well-being of the majority of the population while he was there, and did it all on someone else's money.

Thank you.

George W. Bush Monument Committee

P. S. The Committee has raised $1.35 so far. So please be generous

"JDR ... you are a [leftwing liberal] ... socialist, communist, or the new term progess."

Earth to Bobby. Come in Bobby. Earth to Bobby. Do you copy? Earth to Bobby.

Seriously Bobby, you are clueless about my political and spiritual positions.

JDR, boy do you need a reality check. There's nothing moderate or conservate about you. If you think you are either, you are the one who needs to come back to earth for a reality check, or you can just keep on sticking you head in the sand and keep saying you fair and impartial. Me, I know better.

Carol, please enlighten me to when you or your side ever support the troops or the mission they are and were involved in. You'll have always been against the war on terrorism. Because our troops were in Iraq fighting it there. Everytime Bush tried to do anything, your side always had something critical to say. Show me where your side tried to help with the war. I would really like to see were that happened. Your party has undermined a sitting president at a time of war and proudly boasted about it. Your side has leaked every sercet they could to undermine Bush, no matter who it harmed. Your side is more worried about the rights of our enemy then the well fair of our troops or this country. Cut and run is the only thing your side knows, because they do it everytime the going gets ruff. Thanks to you side, the enemy is happy about these past election. How does that make you feel. The enemy want your side to win. That speaks volumes. Now lets see what your side does for the safety of this country, they now control the House and Senate. Is it a duty still to criticize those in charge of the purse strings on everything they do, or are we suppose to give them a chance. I just want to know whats right now.

Also Carol, when will your side start calling our troops baby killers and murderers, I sorry, some on your side already have. The writer was right, we haven't learned anything from Vietnam, we still have those that disrepected our troops then and those who do the same now. The anti-war crowd was a disgrace then and still are a disgrace on this country. They embolden the enemy back then to hold on, and they are doing the same now. Our news media is just as guilty. Always print bad news, hid anything positive.

No point in giving Carol Dunn -or any of the Kum By Ya...ites the facts. She will simply ask you again in a few minutes, no matter what you point out. I'm sure there is a name for what ails her, but I don't know what it is. A.A.D.D. maybe?

Ms.Dunn, did you read the letter from the marine in Iraq and his thoughts on how the anti-war liberals in this country and their rhetoric is encouraging the terrorists to continue their 'jihad' against Americans and is making his and his conrades life more difficult and their job more dangerous? Or do you think this is just another dark Bush conspiricy to write letters to the 'Ridgefield Press' trying to gain support for his policies?

It doesn't matter what I believe; further discourse with frozen brains is pointless.

Thomas E. Quinn (Fresno, CA)

I arrived in Vietnam in November 1967, and was assigned to the 101st Airborne, 1st Brigade, 327th, 2nd Battalion, Charlie Company, 3rd Platoon -- the "3rd Herd." I was the medic -- "Doc Quinn." I was wounded in A Shau Valley on March 21, 1968 and left Vietnam for good a month later. I grew up in the military, spent 5 years in Asia by the time I was 13 years old, got jungle survival training from the 1st Special Forces attached to my Boy Scout Troop in Okinawa in 1960-61 (training that helped make Vietnam the best camp out I ever had). That was when I first heard of a place they called "Indochina."

When I joined my platoon I heard stories of atrocities committed by people in our division, including rape and murder. These stories were told in matter-of-fact ways. I don't remember if particular units within the 101st were named.

The 1st Battalion had the Tiger Force. My 2nd Battalion had the Hawk Recons, the 502nd had the Recondo's. All were elites within elites and spirited units. I remember the day that orders came down that the Hawks had to give up their boonie hats and wear steel pots like the rest of us non-recon types. They went on "strike" for a few hours, burned off a lot of ammo into the hills to make their feelings known, and, finally, kept their boonie hats and the issue was forgotten.

When I read some of the original articles that were later reshaped into "Tiger Force," I thought -- so, that was where some of those rumors were coming from.

No one in my platoon, during my four months tenure with it in the field, committed any war crimes that I am aware of. In fact, they seemed quite a decent lot of very young men. On Christmas Eve, 1967, toward sunset, while lying on my back reading a book in an area known as Phan Thiet, all hell broke loose and then all was quiet. Several innocent mountain people, all young males & none armed, were killed when they, to their fatal surprise, walked in on our perimeter. The M-60 gunner responsible for their deaths, told me they walked up on him in single file, five yards apart -- a classic sign of a military column. He reacted fast as he was trained to do. He was deeply shaken by what he had done. If he's alive, he probably still is.

One fellow in our company, I learned, was thoroughly disliked when he'd drop by our platoon for a little bull-jive and coffee -- the company sniper. He wasn't liked, I was told, because he was a cold blooded killer.

During one of our operations right after Tet '68, in the Hue region, word came from the Company Commander that he did not want us to be quite so hesitant when we "suspected" the enemy was on us. He had earlier told us to use greater caution because we were operating in a very populated area, but our caution led to our gunner, Gibbs, getting an AK round in the chest.

That night or the next day, we heard that the sniper, acting "less hesitantly," shot a grandmother and her granddaughter at point blank range. The people around me were disgusted. Rumor had it the Company Commander was angered.

The story in Tiger Force is about war crimes. The men responsible should have been charged. More importantly and even less likely to have happened, the officers responsible for them should have been charged, at least exposed.

As awful as the Tiger Force rampage was, as awful as My Lai, et al, was, the truly stupendous, systematic, and policy driven atrocities of the Vietnam War was not mainly the work of us kids with guns -- as real, as awful, as that was when it was cold blooded murder -- as shown in this fine piece of research. The real atrocities began with the routine and relentless use of 105mm & 155mm howitzers, helicopter gunships, Puff-the-Magic Dragons - fixed wing aircraft mounted with gatling-guns, the F-4 Phanthom jets and their 20mm gatling guns, the B-52's, the USS New Jersey's 16 inch guns, etc, etc -- in short, the American Way of War: high fire-power combined with vague, liberal rhetoric. I saw it all and am still appalled.

'Col. David Hackworth:
A man who truly supported our troops'

By Randolph T. Holhut

DUMMERSTON, Vt. - There are two groups of people who "support the troops" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There are the people who stick the now-ubitquitous ribbon magnets on their SUVs and talk about backing our soldiers while staying a safe distance away from the fight.

And then there are the people who work to make sure that our soldiers are well-trained, well-equipped and well-led - people unafraid to tell the truth, no matter who gets upset about it.

We lost a great man in the latter group with the death of Col. David Hackworth, a champion of the common soldier who died of cancer at age 74 on May 4.

Hackworth was a man who could be mentioned in the same breath as Alvin York and Audie Murphy, except that Hackworth's battlefield exploits took place in dozens of battles in two wars. He was put in for the Medal of Honor three times. In seven years of combat in Korea and Vietnam, he won the Army's second highest honor, the Distinguished Service Cross, twice, along with 10 Silver Stars, eight Bronze Stars and eight Purple Hearts.

In short, he was a warrior of the first order. When he spoke out on shoddy training and equipment in his weekly "Defending America" columns, he had credibility gained from successfully leading units into combat.

When he attacked the "ticket punching" mentality of officers who put career advancement ahead of soldiering, he spoke from the hard personal experience of watching the Army's leadership disintegrate into careerism. In Hackworth's world, there were two types of people - "studs" and "perfumed princes." A stud was someone who knew his job and did it well, someone who was fearless, resourceful and utterly reliable when things got tough. Perfumed princes was Hackworth's epithet for officers who had their eyes on becoming generals and rarely got their hands dirty doing actual soldiering.

When he questioned the strategy of the Bush administration's operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the criticism was coming from a man who literally wrote the books ("The Vietnam Primer" and "Steel My Soldiers Hearts") on guerrilla warfare. In a time when billions of dollars are being shoveled into buying weapons that are unneeded and unworkable on a battlefield, Hackworth knew - again, from years in combat experience - that every battle from Lexington and Concord to the Sunni Triangle is won or lost by the man with the rifle - the infantryman.

That was why, of all the awards bestowed upon Hackworth, he was proudest of his Combat Infantryman Badge. There's only one way to get one: serve in a front-line infantry unit for 90 days under fire and survive.

Hackworth knew the key to surviving in combat was good training. He learned the trade from the World War II sergeants who fought across Europe and stayed in the Army after the war was won. These were the toughest of the tough and they passed on what they had learned to the next generation of soldiers.

Their credo was simple - the harder you trained for combat, the less likely you were to die when the bullets were real. Good, hard training, combined with total discipline and accountability, produced skilled, fearless soldiers.

In the words of Steve Prazenka, the platoon sergeant who trained Hackworth: "If you learn it right, you'll do it right the rest of your life. If you learn it wrong, you'll do it wrong and spend the rest of your life trying to learn to do it right."

Hackworth readily embraced this, and carried it with him for the rest of his career. No unit Hackworth commanded was ever lacking in training and discipline and he did whatever it took to get his troops ready to fight.

Good training is the foundation of good leadership. The rest can be found in the principles of another man who deeply influenced Hackworth, Col. Glover Johns. Hackworth loved to quote Johns' basic philosophy of soldiering:

- Strive to do small things well.

- Be a doer and a self-starter - aggressiveness and initiative are two most admired qualities in a leader - but you must also put your feet up and think.

- Strive through self-improvement through constant self-evaluation.

- Never be satisfied. Ask of any project, "How can it be done better?"

- Don't overinspect and oversupervise. Allow your leaders to make mistakes in training, so they can profit from the errors and not make them in combat.

- Keep the troops informed; telling them "what, how, and why" builds their confidence.

- The harder the training, the more troops will brag.

- Enthusiasm, fairness, and moral and physical courage - four of the most important aspects of leadership.

- Showmanship - a vital technique of leadership.

- The ability to speak and write well - two essential tools of leadership.

- There is a salient difference between profanity and obscenity; while a leader employs profanity (tempered with discretion), he never uses obscenities.

- Have consideration for others.

- Yelling detracts from your dignity; take men aside to counsel them.

- Understand and use judgment; know when to stop fighting for something you believe is right. Discuss and argue your point of view until a decision is made, and then support the decision wholeheartedly.

- Stay ahead of your boss.

These are the traits of good leaders in any field. Sadly, the people who live up to them are few and far between. But when you find a person who has these qualities, you will follow them gladly and with pride.

Few things got Hackworth madder than seeing grunts get the short end of the stick. That is why he devoted his energies in the last two decades of his life to making sure soldiers got what they needed and the phonies who sent them off on dubious missions were called out and held accountable.

Hackworth will be buried with full military honors in Arlington National Cemetery on May 31. His legacy is the group "Soldiers For The Truth," (www.sftt.org), a group devoted to military reform that has become the main conduit for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to tell people back home the real story of what's happening at the front. His 1989 autobiography, "About Face," will be read for years to come by all who are seeking the nuts and bolts of leadership. And most of all, his example of speaking out in favor of common sense when it comes to defending the nation will be remembered by all who know the difference between saying you support the troops and actually doing so.

Randolph T. Holhut has been a journalist in New England for more than 20 years. He edited "The George Seldes Reader" (Barricade Books). He can be reached at randyholhut@yahoo.com.

Point of the above two posts:

War is hell; occassionally required but like abortion, to be avoided except in the most extreme life-threatening situations.

If you conduct war from a ship, or from a cockpit at 30,000 ft msl or from an office in DC, you retain distance and therefore lose grain, and visiting VA hospitals doesn't really compensate.

If you conduct war viv-a-vis, you gain resolution and clarity. Hack said soldiers get "filled up" with war, and then go nuts.

Never in war, I confess to a low pixel count, but Neo's ship-board perspective can't be much better. Iraq is a war, like 'nam, concieved and fought shock-and-awe style from armchairs, and there are alot of good men in boots who have or are about to go nuts from over-exposure.

Now I don't know what Bobby uses to qualify a "conservative", but the root is Conserve - which could be defined as don't waste; save for when it is really needed.

I sense Hackworth would agree. "Damm shame" is such a large understatement it becomes cynicism.

cRock-o-...feller,
Although I understand yours is the only legitimate one, there are other views on Iraq.

Cut and pasted...so I won't be accused of "bad form":

June 04, 2006
Final News From Iraq
Greetings All:

As most are aware I’ve been state side for about 13 days now. My time has been primarily taken up with visiting my ailing father. He passed away yesterday morning. I was most grateful to be able to get home in time to visit with him and say goodbye. Towards the end it was difficult to decipher what he was trying to say to me but I was able to comprehend that he was proud of me for my service in Iraq. Truthfully, I couldn’t want for any more from him. I’m missing him already and we haven’t even had the funeral but I am content in knowing that he’s not suffering any more. I firmly believe he’s now in a better place and that I will see him yet again.

It has been great being back home even under the above circumstances. The air is clean, everyone is friendly, the food tastes great, and the wine is awesome. We are so fortunate to live in this great country where there is so much opportunity to excel and do whatever we want. I’ve just felt so good being back ever since I cleared US Customs in Los Angeles and the Customs Agent upon seeing my declaration, passport, and credentials came to attention and said “Welcome home, Sir.” Just doesn’t get any better.

I’ve been asked by many people if I felt the year I spent in Iraq was worth it and/or questioned if I would do it again. Although I need to attend to my Mother at this time, my unequivocal response is not only was it worth it but I would do it again in a second. There is no good legitimate reason why the Middle East cannot live in harmony except for the greed, arrogance, and fanaticism of a minority of the population. The Iraqis that I met and worked with were very warm, caring, and sincere people who just want to live their lives with some peace and happiness. The streets of Iraq are not filled with wild eyed, fanatically crazed, blood thirsty maniacs. However, the Iraqis are being victimized by a minority who mirror that description not physically but figuratively. Convincing the general Iraqi populace that peace and freedom are doable achievements and that they should not despair nor resign themselves to accept such an existence is neither easy nor will it come quickly. It is possible and if it can succeed, it will change the course of history. I am content in knowing that I played a part (however small and insignificant when looking at the total effort) in trying to make democracy work there and in removing a brutal regime. Perhaps I will have an opportunity to return in the future to assist in the same or a different capacity but for right now, I must direct my energies towards my family.

I only hope and pray that one day I might be able to return to Iraq to once again tour the streets of Baghdad and to travel to other locations with ancient historical significance when Iraq may once again be a place of beauty and a wonder to see. Hopefully, there will be a day when it won’t be necessary to travel there in an up-armored SUV, wearing protective gear, and armed to capacity to see the cultural and artistic contributions of all peoples that call Iraq home.

I hope all of you have enjoyed these little insights into my Iraq experience and I wish you all peace and prosperity in your futures. I also hope that our paths continue to cross.

With best regards to you and yours. Bob

At least Bob hasn't been spat upon and asked how many babies he has killed...yet.

No one on this post, except Darryl, knows me personally. You only know what I post. I use my real name and am not afraid of people knowing who I am and what I believe.

I do not hate anyone. I don't like the actions of many. I have never criticized our soldiers. I have criticized our leaders. I do not think being a soldier automatically makes you a hero or a saint. They, like all of us, are human. Some good, some bad. I don't see anyone in our current administration who has done any good thing regarding the war in Iraq.

As stated in the post above, Iraq is not filled with maniacs. Most are like me, people who love their families and friends and want what is best for them. I do not think the USA has made life better for them.

I opposed the war before it began and continue to oppose the war. It was unnecessary and has been handled badly. It breaks my heart that we will probably just send in more troops with no real plan...because there is no military plan which can make things peaceful or right in Iraq.

Amen, Carol Dunn!

Ms. Dunn,
You are relatively safe in using your real name and even your e mail address here, imo. I would be surprised to learn that those who disagree with you would try to contact and attack you personally.
However, I once communicated here and via LTEs using my real name and was awakened @ 5:00am one morning with someone wanting to know - and I quote - "what a real son of a bitch sounded like at this time of the day". I was treated to a rant about how I wanted her mother and father "to die" because I had opined that the federal government had no business in the medical and prescription drug industry.

Also a dear friend posted in this forum using her real name and e mail address and was treated to a subscription of pornographic e mails, courtesy of some 'tolerant' liberal who happened to disagree with her views.

So Ms. Dunn, anonymity is used not because I am afraid of my beliefs being exposed, it is used to keep fruitcakes from the left from harassing me and my family.

The view you posted via that letter does not conflict in any way with mine, Neo. I echo all those sentiments ... the whole point - which you seem to be clueless in grasping - is this:

Do you REALLY believe we took the best approach towards achieving that soldiers hope and prayer: " .. return to Iraq ... a place of beauty and a wonder to see"

Regardless of why we went in, the stuff we did and didn't do post-"Mission-Accomplished" ... Jeeze! Under American watch, it has steadily deteoriated - seen by the entire world - while we were told "Stay the course", we know what we're doing. Now after almost 4 years of tha BS, the Prez is rethinking. Jeeze again!

The soldier is spot-on ... but you apparently are just plain nuts.

Our reactionary friends are content to hate "liberals" for hating "Bush", one strawman being as good as another. Well, I'm a liberal, not a feel-good conservative or make-nice Christian, who's delighted to accept the term, though my wife insists I'm more conservative than any of the suits she works with. At least "we" didn't make the wonderful conservative examples of Louisianna, Mississippi, and Alabama.
It's good we liberals have "rights" like freedom of speech, 'cause the reactionaries don't want us using speech or writing to point out the lies and general BS they accept. Many of tem even believe Ann Coulter writes the truth on purpose.
It's amazing how much faith some people put in a former general who spent his military career fighting for lies, then was in charge of spreading those lies, and, now that his country has more personal, political, and economic freedom than it ever had under either of its two previous regimes, he packs up and leaves to go live in Paris (too bad, so sad, he has given up so much).
I'm sorry one Marine doesn't feel supported by those who didn't want to send him off to a war based on lies and stupidity in the first place. He joined of his own free will, he's spent his time being properly indoctrinated, and he obviously believes in his mission - he may even think his leaders know what that mission is, 'cause he's got to have faith that his superiors up the line know something he doesn't. If I don't have the right to marshall information and say that he was sent on a false promise, then he's there for nothing except to uphold neocon's childish concept of manhood.
Neocon and Bobby need to read more Ben Franklin and George Washington. Heck, they need to read more current news; even the N&R prints stuff they're missing.
BTW, JDR, no amount of news reporting can report everything - something has to fall below the level of notice or the paper would be too heavy to lift every day. The IRC noted that during one period, fewer than 100 attacks against coalition forces were reported, but the evidence indicated that over 1,000 actually took place - but Lee and Jim are pantsy-waisted, liberal fairies who've never done our country right. Right, neocon?
Good deeds are harder to report - check out any daily newspaper for them vs. crime and accidents. If there is so much good news to report out of Iraq, the right-wing media moguls should be happt enough to report it. They've managed to keep the daily disasters there off the front page for over a year. Few papers today are owned by anyone other than media conglomerates.
Good Soltice and merry whateverelse to all.

cRock-o-...feller, "nuts"? I thought that word had been eradicated from the liberal dictionary along with the anatomy part.

Mr. Tew, my "'childish' concept of manhood"?
And "Smarmy the Clown" is a mature and sophisticated debate tactic? You have no background in this forum to critique one for being "childish". Go play in the sandbox with the world traveler.

neocon,
There is really no need for the insults you sling at Mr. Tew. Like many, he defends the freedoms you love, right here on this blog. While his ideas may differ from yours, he loves his country every bit as much as you do. Merry Christmas neocon!

I'll overlook your biased opinion today.
Merry Christmas to you too, DemonDeacon...and everyone else. (even those who's upper lip curling is an automatic reflex when they see me post)
*Smile*

OK, OK...that hurt just a little bit, but what the hell....(grin)

neocon,
Merry Christmas! I hope your nephew is safe and can return home soon. That is my Christmas wish for you and your family.