War foes will not hurt morale
By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 8, 2007
The Defense Department's top civilian and its top military officer, undercutting the White House and other senior Republicans yesterday, said Congress doesn't endanger troop morale by voting on nonbinding resolutions opposing President Bush's Iraq reinforcement plan.
"From the standpoint of the troops, I believe that they understand how our legislature works and that they understand that there's going to be this kind of debate," said Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace, effectively taking out of play an argument that had been made by Mr. Bush's spokesman and other top Republicans, who had warned resolutions disagreeing with the troop increase plan would send bad signals.
Joining Gen. Pace in testifying to the House Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said the troops are "sophisticated enough to understand" that the debate is about a way to move forward in Iraq.
But Gen. Pace said that would all change if today's nonbinding resolutions turned into moves to cut off funding for the war effort -- something some Democrats have proposed.
"They're going to be looking to see whether or not they are supported in the realm of mission given and resources provided," the Marine general said. "As long as this Congress continues to do what it has done, which is to provide the resources for the mission, the dialogue will be the dialogue, and the troops will feel supported."
The two men's comments are in stark contrast to arguments made by Republicans, including the president's spokesman, Tony Snow, that a debate on resolutions could have an effect on the troops.
"Think about what message resolutions would send," Mr. Snow said last month, adding that while he wouldn't judge the effects himself, "It is a question that those who are talking about these resolutions will have to answer to themselves and to the public."
Arizona Sens. Jon Kyl and John McCain and Utah Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, all Republicans, have raised similar questions -- just yesterday, in the case of Mr. Hatch.
"Our political will is directly related to the morale of our troops," he said on the Senate floor. "Those who seek to, for rhetorical purposes only, assert their support of the troops while communicating their opposition to their mission cannot sever this natural connection between political will and morale."
Mr. McCain last month raised the question about resolutions and morale with Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the new commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, during a Senate hearing.
"It would not be a beneficial effect," answered Gen. Petraeus.
The division over U.S. troop morale aside, Mr. Gates, Gen. Pace and others all agreed that the debate could send wrong signals to al Qaeda and other enemies the United States is fighting.

You know Vaughn, I'd tend to agree with the statement that as a whole congress does not hurt the war effort. I wouldn't say so much for a few individual congressmen and senators though.

British Army Maj. Gen. Simon Mayall, deputy commander of Multinational Corps Iraq, said in a Pentagon news conference via satellite.

"In 2007, we really are in an interesting time in which we hope to see the government understanding its responsibilities and having the confidence to step up and take those responsibilities ... (and) the indigenous Iraqi security forces taking the full responsibility for their security." "This year will be a battle of wills in Iraq," Mayall said, "as the coalition and the majority of Iraqis struggle against those who don't want a democratic, representative society that responds to the rule of law. The stakes are very high, and the Iraqi security forces and government need to see the strong commitment of the coalition as they grow and develop the ability to take over their own country," he said.

"Those people are absolutely relying on us in the coalition to continue to stand by them to give them the confidence to continue to defend the security of the Iraqi people, to develop their competence to do it, and to take forward this shared mission -- to deliver a new future to Iraq," he said.

When the Iraqis will be ready to take over security completely is conditions-based, Mayall said, but the important thing is to keep them in the fight and continue to develop their capabilities. Iraqi units fight alongside coalition forces every day, and they will continue to improve as they are given more responsibility, he said.

The Iraqi security forces are increasing the coalition's capacity, but a surge in troops alone will not be the answer for Iraq, Mayall said. A surge is needed in every element of the counterinsurgency operation, including development of the Iraqi government and ministerial capabilities, and economic development, he said.

"In any counterinsurgency operation, particularly the type of complexity of operation we're in at the moment, the security line of operation cannot and was never designed to deliver the desired end state," he said. "Therefore, around any application of military force, we must assume that the government of Iraq is also stepping up to the plate."

Speaking from the perspective of a British officer, Mayall said he is utterly impressed by the dedication and courage of the U.S. servicemembers in Iraq. Britain remains a staunch ally in the war on terror, he said, and he expressed optimism about Iraq's future.

"I remain utterly confident, with the commitment we have from the Iraqis and ourselves, that we are going to be successful in 2007," he said.

Ya know Vaughn, I hope this limey is right.

Have you ever read anything about Joseph P. Kennedy in the year running up to the beginning of WW2 and the year there after? When he was the United States ambassador to Britain? Joe wrote the Brits off and made no qualms about saying they were fighting a lost cause. Roosevelt didn't see it that way though. Matter of fact he canned Joe's ass for making some pretty rude remarks about Roosevelt "off the record" to a bunch of newspaper men. Funny, when someone says something with the caveate that it's "off the record" it almost guarantees it's going to make the front page.

Old Joe Kennedy didn't want the USA fighting in WW2 and was about willing to do or say anything to keep us out. There was one thing he wasn't willing to do though; in 1940 Roosevelt collared him and told him if he didn't come out on a national radio broadcast endorsing FDR in the 1940 election for president his kids might as well kiss any hope of a political future good bye in the democratic party. Can you picture JFK, RFK, or Teddy Kennedy as republicans?

John Glenn on the senate floor

Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13

Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and women in the armed services do what they do for a living.

This is a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served think of the military.

Senator Metzenbaum to Senator Glenn: "How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?"

Senator Glenn: "I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps.

I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space program.

It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank. I ask you to go with me ... as I went the other day... to a veteran's hospital and look those men - with their mangled bodies - in the eye, and tell them they didn't hold a job! You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee... and you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DADS didn't hold a job.

You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags.

You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you tell me that those people didn't have a job? I'll tell you, Howard Metzenbaum; you should be on your knees every day of your life thanking God that there were some men - some men - who held real jobs. And they required a dedication to a purpose - and a love of country and a dedication to duty - that was more important than life itself. And their self-sacrifice is what made this country possible.

I have held a job, Howard! What about you?"

For those who don't remember - During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA.

He was a Senator!

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran.

it may have changed the minds of a few vet about the funding of the war

Cut the Funding: I'm a Soldier and I Approve this Message Hotlist
by The Angry Rakkasan [Subscribe]
Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 03:58:24 PM PST

(Promoted by MissLaura)

Thus far, I’ve been riding the fence on the "cut the funding" debate. But no more. Not after listening to that moron, our President, on TV this morning. After listening to him bumble his way through another public appearance, I’m convinced that, whatever the cost politically, the Democrats must now move to cut funding for the war in Iraq.

As a soldier who’s served in both theaters of this war, I’m often asked whether I think a freeze on war funding would hurt the soldiers. I usually respond rationally by saying something like, "No, but it could hurt them in the long term if such a move were to cost the Democrats the elections in 2008." Well, I don’t think this is the time for long-term planning anymore. I’ve played the pros and cons of cutting funding over and over in my head for months, and I am now convinced that a cessation of funding is the only way to stop this lunatic. Cutting funding will not endanger the troops.

Here’s why:

These are some of the arguments used against the idea of cutting funding:

It hurts Democrats politically

It might. But I’m not really concerned with that at this point. Call me short-sighted, but all I have to do is take one look at George W. Bush muddling his way through a question and answer session and I am convinced that the American people will be with me on this. Note to policymakers reading this: Please take a gander at the latest poll numbers.

It endangers the troops

This is propaganda nonsense. The House of Representatives could easily fashion a bill that halts any funding for the war on March 1, 2008. Such a bill would fully fund the troops in harm’s way for the rest of the year—but it would force the President to begin the redeployment immediately. How we, as Americans, have gotten it into our collective consciousnesses that cutting the funding could somehow "hurt the troops" is something I’ll never be able to figure out. The Pentagon has some evil people that work within its halls, but the organization itself is not inherently evil. If the funding were cut, the Defense Department would very quickly move to begin a safe and orderly withdrawal. I think back to when I was in Iraq and I wanted to come home. Never once did it enter my mind that if the funding were cut, I would somehow be in more danger. I mean, I was already there with soft-skinned humvees and only a single plate for my vest.

It hurts the troops’ morale

Go talk to a 22-year old father who’s been there for 13 months and who’s never seen his baby. Ask him how ending the war would affect his morale. Better yet, go ask him right after he’s survived his third IED and follow-on ambush. Ask him an hour after it happens, while he can barely hold his cigarette because he’s still got the shakes from the fear and adrenaline. "Hey, bub, how’s your morale?"

It emboldens terrorists

Embassy bombings. U.S.S. Cole. 9/11. World Trade Center tumbling down on TV.

Who came up with this talking point? In case you missed it, the "terrorists" were pretty riled up before the invasion of Iraq. And another thing I hate about this meme is that it is stated from a position of fear—the implication being that we will be in more danger if we leave. Sigh. So you’re telling me that if we pull out of Iraq, rebuild our military to its former strength, and re-focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan, we would be emboldening the terrorists? I gotta tell you, if I were a terrorist, the thing I’d be most afraid of would be a fresh, rested, rebuilt, and focused American military. If I’m a terrorist, I’m currently loving the fact that a beaten down and confused American Army is sitting at a standstill, stuck in the February mud of Iraq. It makes my life easier.

It will cause Iraq to fall into a bloody civil war in which regional players will involve themselves

Have I been sleeping? Were we not at that point already? How do these assholes on the right get away with continuing to say that on one hand, if we leave, it could cause other countries to step in, and on the other hand, to say that these other countries are already meddling in Iraq’s business? Didn’t we just get a Powerpoint on that?

Bottom line: Cut the funding. Pull the plug. Take away the keys. However you want to phrase it, it needs to be done soon.

* The Angry Rakkasan's diary :: ::
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/14/134438/356

I think the fellows name was Osama bin Laden, eh? Bin Laden said:

"But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia … However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu, you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge, but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. …"

This from a guy who hides in caves and among innocent women and children, while he sends others off to kill those innocents while dying for him (Allah's Deputy Dawg).

Marine: "I think the fellows name was Osama bin Laden, eh? "

And, there's the rub. Where is he? Why is he breathing?
Two wars, thousands of casualties and hundreds of billions
of dollars. And, the planner, funder and leader of the
attacks on America on 9/11 isn't even mentioned by the
"commander-in-chief".

What a wasted six years.

Sorry, but a simple man (like a PFC) just wants
a simple mission, a target sought with intensity,
a focus, a reason to fight...not a political labyrinth of unending B.S.
That's how you lose national support...how you lose war(s).

I'd almost be tempted to learn one of the local dialects, grow a beard, and go unbathed for a year so I could fit in with the locals and go find him Chuck. I bet he ain't got much of a life though; knowing it will take just one screw up and a tomahawk missle will come flying in through his window.

Gunney, I'd pull up these saggin' jeans and go with ya if we could.
Sincerely, would leave the homestead and stumble up the rocks.
Cause I believe you would too.

I bet it'd be more fun than hunting wild hogs in the river bottoms.

where is bin laden?
Clinton did exactly what bush should have done in Iraq, put an end to Americans dieing.

I would imagine bin Laden is hiding out someplace in the wilds of Northern Pakistan Vaughn. If you can pinpoint where he's at for me I'll go bag him and we can split the 27 million dollar reward a variety of folks got on his carcus.

What Bill Clinton did didn't work though Vaughn.

Bin Laden's outfit came back in 1996 and blew up American soldiers in their billets at Khobar Towers, blew up a couple of our embassies in Africa, killed a bunch of Americans at their residence compound in Saudi Arabia, and attacked the USS Cole in 2000 all on Bill Clinton's watch.

I ain't going to blame Bill Clinton for what happen on 9/11 but bin Laden did that too. So we bugged out of Somalia and gave bin Laden reason to believe we were gutless.

so now all the repugs are going to blame the dems for the ones who get KIA from now on BS who started this war bush
why? 9/11
but that was Osama and the hijackers from Saudi Arabia.
their is more hate coming out of saudi arabia than the rest of ME

I don't know about you vet65/69, but when I was in Nam, the last thing that was talked about during our down time was the political activities back in the World.

George Bush41 IS Bid-laden.
Tall lean and lanky
Ever see them together


as for the title-

Did anyone stop and think this war is bad for the morale of those that don't like our constitutional rights taken away

You’ve mentioned bin laden several times in this thread, what does the war in Iraq have to do with the attacks on 9-11 and bin laden?
Generous of you not to “blame” bubba Clinton, still I must point again to the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, yet we’ve placed a large percentage of our resources in the wrong place if we did want to retaliate against the people who actually attacked our homeland.
58,000 dead from of the Vietnam war, 3130 dead in the Iraq war and they are all dead because of presidential politics, not much glory in that eh gunny.

Methinks there are certain war foes in politics that say dumb things that're actually good for our troops' morale.

our CIC quotes, this just a few lol

""We look forward to analyzing and working with legislation that will make--it would hope--put a free press's mind at ease that you're not being denied information you shouldn't see." --G.W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 14, 2005


"Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB/GYN's aren't able to practice their love with women all across the country." --George W. Bush, Sept. 6, 2004, Poplar Bluff, Mo.

"Free societies are hopeful societies. And free societies will be allies against these hateful few who have no conscience, who kill at the whim of a hat." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Sept. 17, 2004


"That's why I went to the Congress last September and proposed fundamental—supplemental funding, which is money for armor and body parts and ammunition and fuel." --George W. Bush, Erie, Pa., Sept. 4, 2004

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we," he said. "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." Washington, D.C. 08.05.04

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005

"I want to thank you for the importance that you've shown for education and literacy." --G.W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 13, 2005

I don't know if those quotes are helpful or hurtful for the morale of the troops, but they're great for my morale!

I don't imagine bin Laden has much to do with the war in Iraq Vaughn, you're the one who brought up bin Laden. Trying to link Saddam with bin Laden has been a regular smokescreen the anti war movement has tried. There are some links but not strong ones, if you read the 2003 DIA estimate it says as much.

Morale? War foes? How about just ANGER! I am getting madder by the day as this Iraq war gets worse. Get rid of Bush. Bring home the troops. ALL OF THEM!

KT