No free lunch!
Here we go again...the chickenhawks, going bullshit with rage over not getting their way, slam Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) over his post-vote comments that the administration's "days of a free lunch are over." This after competing Dem and GOP military spending bills failed to clear the Senate on Friday, setting up a possible budget crunch for the Pentagon if nothing happens in the next month or so.
I was struck by Rep. Heather Wilson's (R-N.M.) comment that Schumer should immedately apologize to the troops for his 'insensitivity.' "Sen. Schumer only wants to fund pay, body armor and chow for the troops if he can put conditions on the money so that they cannot do the mission they have been ordered to do," she said.
Right...this after a GOP-led Congress signed billions and billions of America's dollars over to the administration, which has made a career of fighting an ill-begotten war in Iraq that is systematically destroying America's Armed Forces and leaving our flanks exposed to another 9/11 and/or inability to fight if, say, something really bad happens with Pakistan, North Korea, China or Russia...not to name any of a dozen other potential combat scenarios worldwide.
The Democrats have an extremely valid point: Yes, the military must be funded well, trained well and...here's the part the Bush faithful have yet to grok: USED IN A REASONABLE MANNER THAT BENEFITS AMERICAN INTERESTS.
Then again, if 'American interests' mean chucking blood and treasure into unneccesarry operations, destabilizing the Middle East and leaving America vulnerable, then I guess Rep. Wilson and her colleagues have done a damn fine job.
Bra-vo.
In slightly better news, the Army is taking the unusal step of having a theater commander, GEN Petraeus, (perhaps the last, best hope among senior officers) help select some of out Army's future leaders. This story is a small glimmer of hope that the Army is starting to listen to officers and NCOs who know well that things are a bit different where the bullets fly and the IEDs detonate than they are in a well-secured palace in Iraq. At least SOMEONE out there is thinking of the Army's future.
I don't see much thought of the future coming out of the current administration. Besides, it won't be their problem...they'll just blame someone else, as they always do! Accountability be damned!
I'll be posting soon on a new intiative coming out of VoteVets.org, which is launching VetVoice.com next week. I haven't looked at it much yet, but I think it's going to be a good place for those of us who are in the know - and care about it - to share ideas on what needs to be done in Congress and the Executive as this nation faces God-knows-what in the coming years.
Long post...time to hang it up and go nighty-night.
3 comments:
Please do visit VetVoice and post. You are a good writer and obviously follow the issues closely.
You would be another great VETVOICE!
Rick
VoteVets.org. for Wa. State
votevetswa@gmail.com
I.Vet, this is not a rhetorical question. I would like to know what our troops are told is the mission in Iraq. I ask because, since the beginning, it has never seemed clear to me at all what the mission might be. Everytime I've thought I knew the mission, it seems the administration changed their reasons for keeping our troops in Iraq. First, it was to locate and destroy WMD. Check, no WMD. Then, it was to topple Hussein's regime and liberate the Iraqi people. Check, Hussein is dead, Iraq has a democratically elected parliament. But, then, the mission was to stop the insurgents and so on. Are the troops in Iraq as confused about all of this as I am? Seriously, I'd like to know what they are told, if anything, is the mission now.
Gage:
Excellent question.
I don't know verbatim what they are being told now, but my experience in late 2003 and early 2004 was this:
As we mobilized in late 2003, we were assured that Iraq would be nearly pacified by the time we arrived in the Spring of 2004. Our main mission, as I was led to believe, would be training of 'new' Iraqi forces to take the reins of a 'stable' Iraq.
Of course, as our actual deployment drew closer, we knew it would not be as sweet as previously advertised. We were geared up again for WMD duties, policing, stabilization, etc.
For us, the moment of truth came within 24H of us arriving in Iraq in March, 2004. As we convoyed through Baghdad (during morning rush hour, no less), our convoy was hit by an IED, and we lost a guy. On the first day!
After that, we came to the realization pretty darn quick that Iraq was nowhere near peaceful, and the mission turned into fighting the insurgency and, to a smaller extent, working infrastructure and local political issues (working with tribes, sheiks, settling ethnic/religious/property disputes, etc.).
In the end, I think we were fiarly effective in maintaining relative peace throughout our AO (south of Kirkuk, near a town called Tuz Khurmatu).
That relative peace, unfortunately, has been shattered as a result of this year's "surge," which effectively drove terrorists/insurgents out of the Baghdad area and into the lesser-populated areas of the country. Tuz has become MUCH more violent this year, to include the 7 JUL 07 bombing that killed about 150 in a market near that city.
You asked me "What is the mission." My answer, if I were heading back there today, is rather simple: Keep my fellow troops alive until we can get the heck out of there and come home.
Post a Comment