The Democrats in Congress---and the few Republicans who agree with them---who've been pushing for a troop withdrawal continue to maintain that what they're proposing is not only in the best interests of the American people, but it's in the best interests of the troops themselves.
That would appear to be a no-brainer: surely the best way to protect the troops is to put them out of harm's way, and that means their leaving Iraq and coming back home where they belong.
But what do the troops serving in Iraq think about it all? Sometimes I'm convinced that the aforementioned Congressional members don't really much care about the answer to that question.
Those who are pushing withdrawal and the cutting of funds are concerned with a variety of matters, first and foremost politics. But I would guess that some of them do indeed have a sincere concern for the safety of the troops. Unfortunately, that concern is all too often embedded in a combination of patronizing condescension ("those poor, benighted, undereducated, oppressed troops") and disapproval ("those babykillers, brutes, torturers").
I've searched for polls that might offer some information to answer the question of what the troops themselves think or want, but I've found nothing especially relevant. Petitions, either pro-withdrawal or anti (see this and this) tell us virtually nothing except that there are two thousand active military personnel ready to sign the former, and three thousand ready to sign the latter.
There are some older polls that questioned the military on Iraq-related issues, here, but no data on the current withdrawal or fund-cutting proposals. There's some interesting information available, though; in the most recent poll, which was taken at the end of 2006 among active military personnel (50% of whom had served in Iraq and 12% in Afghanistan). Morale was very high, support for the Iraq War was higher than lack of support, and more people thought success was likely than thought it unlikely.
But to me the most interesting responses were the answers to the following questions: how soon do you think the Iraqi military will be ready to replace large numbers of American troops, and how long do you think the U.S. will need to stay in Iraq to reach its goals?
Only 2% of the troops thought the answer to the first question would be "less than a year," and only 2% thought the answer to the second would be "1-2 years." The overwhelming bulk of the responses were in the "3 to 5 years" or even "5 to 10 years" categories, with a substantial minority thinking it might even take more than 10 years to accomplish either goal.
Contrast this with the impatience of Congress and much of the American public, who want it done by September or sooner or it will be "pull the plug" time. The members of the military who bear the brunt of it all understand the difficulty of the task, probably because they have studied the history of fighting insurgencies, guerilla wars, and terrorism far more than most of us have.
And yet, morale is high among them. They don't have the benefit of easy optimism, but they don't allow themselves the luxury of easy pessimism, either. I think what they are engaged in is actually realism, and that implies not only an awareness of the length of time this might take, but the extreme importance of the mission.
W. Thomas Smith Jr., a former US Marine infantry leader and now journalist on military matters, has written this piece about Iraq for the National Review. Smith dispenses with some misconceptions the general public, fed on a steady diet of MSM misinformation, have about the Iraqi people themselves. (Also see this article for a list of the accomplishments of the so-called "surge"; they are far from negligible.)
Smith mentions that most of the troops are stunned that anyone takes seriously Reid's contentions that we've already "lost" in Iraq. And he reiterates what so many have said before: premature withdrawal from Iraq (and withdrawal any time soon would, by definition, be premature) would jeopardize the trust our allies (and enemies) have that we will keep our word.
Smith also thinks a premature withdrawal would have a more direct effect on the troops:
Success in Iraq is also about the morale and well-being of the U.S. military. Our forces would suffer in ways most D.C. politicians cannot begin to imagine if we were to retreat from Iraq.
That sort of suffering---the deep frustration of working hard for a vitally important goal and having all possibility of reaching it taken out of your hands just when things are beginning to improve---that sort of suffering is not the concern of those crying that their actions are only to "protect" the troops.
Congress, of course, knows better than those stupid, exploited, brutal (choose your own adjective) troops themselves know about what is good for them.
[This entry is cross-posted at neo-neocon.]
neo,
Democracy is so frustrating, isn't it?
Those bad bad mean ol congress-people only thinking about their damn jobs and supporting troop withdrawal just because the people who elect them want troop withdrawal. Too bad they don't have the courage of their convictions---I mean your convictions--and tell those people who vote for them to go shove it.
Especially since maybe a little over half the troops don't favor withdrawal. Maybe we should give anyone in the armed forces a weighted vote. Maybe each service member should have 5 votes to your one. That'd sure show those politicians, who only think about politics, how they really ought to vote.
Or maybe we shouldn't let anyone vote who doesn't vote the correct way. That way politicians won't have to worry about politics anymore.
There does seem to be a disconect here. The troops want to stay but 2 out of 3 Americans day they should come home. Perhaps the troops need to be reminded about who is picking up the check
No, 2 out of 3 Americans do NOT want to surrender to Al Qaeda in Iraq. What they do want is a change of course designed to win.
Of course, surrendering to Al Qaeda in Iraq only encourages the same thing here. We will have shown exactly how many Americans it takes to kill by the enemy to force us to surrender.
Want the same campaign in the US as in Iraq? Surrender to the enemy and you'll get it. IEDs and suicide attacks and beheading of teachers, government workers, etc. can be done in Iowa, Texas, New Jersey, and NYC just as easily as in Iraq. Turn over that country to bin Laden and we'll get it in Afghanistan AND at home.
That is if we are not nuked first. NYT reports Iran is even closer than we thought to nukes, and Musharraf hangs by a thread from a Taliban-Al Qaeda coup in Pakistan.
But hey, there isn't any cost here in Fortress America. It's not like a bunch of illegal immigrants could fly planes into skyscrapers. Or anything like that.
Somehow I doubt surrender is popular. Otherwise Congress would have already forced that issue.
No one likes Wars of Attrition. They suck. Welcome to the Party Pal. Sometimes life just sucks and no course of action is cost-free.
Jim Rockford,
2 out of 3 Americans disagree with you that withdrawal from Iraq, where we are allowing one side of a civil war to bulk up, is defeat by or surrender to AQ. That doesn't mean you are wrong. But you've got to come to grips with the fact that most of us just plain don't agree with your assessment.
I'm amazed you didn't run across this poll from last year.
944 surveyed in country.
I'm amazed that two out of three moonbats bray that Americans want out of Iraq now. The troops know that a withdrawal will mean the violence we see in Baghdad will migrate here. But as the moonbats and wingnuts howl at each full moon the public sees that it remains business as usual just more corrupt politicians like Reid, Feinstein and Pelosi making fortunes while reducing the anti corruption measures that had been in place.
I'm sure Americans will vote in a party that supports its troops uness there is a peanut subsidy involved or will endorse a party that will beef up our intelligence capabilities by shifting resources to global warming.
As gas prices increase I can't wait to hear the usual Schumerisms about greedy oil companies while the government makes four cents in taxes for every cent that oil companies do. I'm sure the public will endorse a party that is more concerned about polar bears than the working man's plight at the pump as the dhimmies continue to prevent drilling in ANWAR, the Gulf or off our coasts. I'm sure the public will understand that we now import gasoline, not just oil, because the dhimmies and their tree hugger allies have prevented the construction of nuclear power plants and oil refineries for the past 35 years.
I'm sure the American people will vote for a party that has spent over a trillion dollars on alternative energy, fuels, and technology that has developed zip, zero, nada.
Yeah vote dhimmiecrat, remember the peace that came with the fall of Vietnam as a result of that dhimmiecrat sellout of an ally? Do we need to see more Laos, Cambodia, Yemen, Angolas, Afghanistan, Mozambique, Nicargua, etc?
Vote Hillary in 2008 a gulag in every neighborhood.
"Perhaps the troops need to be reminded about who is picking up the check"
'Picking up the check'? Versus, say, actually being shot at and killed?
And suggesting servicemembers need to be 'reminded' of their place is running dangerously close to what William Arkin infamously said a few months ago.
Neo -
Smith's article lists the accomplishments of the so-called "surge" so far, and they are far from negligible.
As far as I can see, NOWHERE in that piece, are the accomplishments listed of the surge. Feel free to correct me, I may be wrong but - what the heck?
davebo, that's an even earlier poll than the poll that neo complains is dated. The poll is before the Al-Askari Mosque bombing (Feb. 22, 2006), which I think is widely considered a significant turning point in the post-war reconstruction efforts.
Mark --
Do you agree that 35% of Democrats believe GWB planned or allowed to happen, 9/11? I take those poll results as suspect, as reliable as Dewey Defeats Truman.
My evidence for this is that Dems have not voted for immediate withdrawal. If it were so popular, why would not both Houses of Congress support a two-thirds majority of the voters and vote so by a Veto-proof margin?
Because it's not really that popular. Americans are frustrated with a drawn-out war of attrition. But surrender to Al Qaeda? Despite the best efforts of the Media and Dems to conceal that (and call it a "civil War" ... where neither had a problem inserting America in a civil war in the Balkans, or has any hesitations about Darfur's civil war) ... Dems are unwilling to vote in large numbers for immediate withdrawal.
If they thought it was a winner, why wouldn't they vote for it?
Answer: because Dems would own defeat and after losing inevitably in Afghanistan and suffering jihadi suicide attacks here would effectively cease to exist as a party.
"Those who are pushing withdrawal and the cutting of funds are concerned with a variety of matters, first and foremost politics. But I would guess that some of them do indeed have a sincere concern for the safety of the troops. Unfortunately, that concern is all too often embedded in a combination of patronizing condescension ("those poor, benighted, undereducated, oppressed troops") and disapproval ("those babykillers, brutes, torturers")."
I can only believe that you're making these "all too often" comments up, or plucking them from an anonymous blog post somewhere.
Can't Neocons seem to make any arguments without resorting to outright fabrication? I guess when reality doesn't fit, make it fit.
"Congress, of course, knows better than those stupid, exploited, brutal (choose your own adjective) troops themselves know about what is good for them."
Why should anyone pay any attention to this one-sided inflammatory propoganda little Miss "9/11 Changed Everything"?
I can't cite personal experience as a current soldier, since I did my service before 9/11. However, from my experience as an MI troop in the 1990s, one reason I believe soldiers are more willing to continue mission in Iraq is that as we worriedly watched Iraq in the 1990s, we expected that we'd have to go back to Iraq because disarmament/containment-punishment was not working. That op had to end sooner or later, and unless we returned Saddam to full power, that meant we'd be going in. For us, it was a question of when and how, not if.
Which is to say, a soldier's sense of our nation's affairs is not episodic. Desert Storm was part of our 'family business' history, and we knew Iraq as unfinished business. We didn't doubt that the lives we saved in 1991 by leaving Saddam in power meant future soldiers - perhaps us - would die in Iraq, and that's come to pass. I would guess that today's soldiers may have the sense that failure to do the job right in Iraq this time will only mean death for future American soldiers.
Yeah I blame George Bush Sr. !!!!!!
I agree with the democrats. I'm tired of soldiers being killed. It's time to withdraw the troops and let american civilians be killed instead. Not by the handful a day or the dozens a month. No! Civilians dead by the hundreds and thousands at a time! That's what we want! That's what we want! When do we want it? Now!
I think lying to the troops, failing to provide them with sufficient resources and objectives, and sending them into combat in situations where they cannot easily distinguish friend from foe are all much worse crimes than underestimating their tolerance for suffering and pain.
About those polls: On my blog I've written a number of pieces about those polls that purport to show what the majority of Americans want regarding Iraq. It turns out that (surprise, surprise!) the results are more complex than usually presented. Here's a post that features such a discussion, and here's another.
To hypocrisyrules (commenter #8): Thanks, you are absolutely correct. I meant to cite another article as listing the surge's accomplishments, and somehow got the two articles confused (I had read them at the same time). Here is the proper link, which I will now fix in the post above.
Wow. Talk about assumptions. Maybe you should talk to people favoring withdrawal of our troops. You could ask them why they think it's best, and what they think of our soldiers. Because last I checked, most people I know favor some withdrawal. (And yes, that includes some military members, including my husband.) Not because we want to surrender, but because Iraq needs us to slowly start pulling out so they can gradually start taking over. It's not going to happen if we are there to do it for them, or if every time they make an effort we overrule them.
Those same people know that our soldiers are not unintelligent, are perfectly capable men and women, and often do jobs that we could not imagine ourselves doing. The average soldier joins with a high school education, maybe some college. He gets further technical training from the army. Maybe some people discount it because it doesn't give college credit, but they are no less intelligent than other people.
At the same time, they aren't the grounds for hero worship that some of you seem to think they are. They are people. People who do what they must. It's amazing what you can do when you have to. They do have the advantage of being there, and actually seeing what's happening, but they're ultimately people with different job skills than you have. Some of them choose it because it's the best means they have to a steady job and further education, some of them choose it because it's their dream to defend their country, some do choose it out of a sense of duty.
What makes them heroic to me is that what they do, they do for low pay, pretty good benefits, lots of extra hours with no overtime, loss of personal freedoms (including basic constitutionally guaranteed ones, like freedom of speech), and hardship to their families. And yet they do what they must for their countries, their families, and themselves.
Keep that in mind when you start spouting stereotypes.
As pointed out above, American soldiers, sailors and airmen get the same number of votes as the rest of us -- 1 each. Their views are entitled to no more and no less weight than any citizen.
If AQ is such a threat, why aren't they here now? With all the experience and training that they have received in Iraq, they haven't deployed a single sniper team nor a single car bomb in the US. It's not like our borders are particularly secure now and will suddenly become more porous once our troops return. Maybe AQ is not such a threat in a country where their soldiers don't speak the language, know the customs nor have safe haven.
We may be fighting AGAINST AQ in Iraq, but what are we fighting FOR? The best case appears to be another betrayal of the Kurds and a strongly pro-Iranian central government.
Neo-neocon...still no reply from you on my simple question, posed in #11, asking you to provide sourcing evidence for the alleged quotes you believe are representative of "The Democrats in Congress---and the few Republicans who agree with them---who've been pushing for a troop withdrawal"????
"I have a background as a therapist, and my politics make me a pariah in my profession, too."
My heart bleeds for you, my poor Neocon-of-the-fragile-sensibilities (another characteristic of your breed along with the making-shit-up-to-justify-personal-anger). Might I suggest you look toward your lack of coherent and rational argument as another explanation for this alleged peer castigation?
Still waiting....
Capotal:
Permit me to offer two friendly observations.
1) Not everyone checks threads at WoC several times a day. Your feelings of urgency are yours, and not anyone else's.
2) I'd encourage you to check the Woc comments policy and see if you think you're meeting its recommendations.
We like to cultivate an atmosphere that is less obnoxious than some other websites with a political focus, and we try to encourage substantive commentary. I encourage you to adopt that spirit. If you're not so inclined, it's a big blogoverse.
Nort, not wearing his Marshal's hat at the moment
Well, it's MY policy to assume someone is lying if they cannot provide links quickly to quoted material. NeoNeo entered the thread in between my question and now, so I can only assume that time or attention are not constraints. Like I said, this is what passes for Neocon debate in these sorry times...lies, prejudice and disinformation.
Wolf Pangloss (#12)"
"If Americans are pulled out what will happen to the Iraqis who have taken a stand against Al Qaeda?"
Just out of curiosity, Wolf: why should it be OUR (the US') responsibility? If these Iraqis are so deadset against al-Qaeda, why can't THEY form up a militia or something (plenty of suitable weaponry available) - and "take a stand" (or something a bit more proactive) themselves? Iraqi soldiers (or potential soldiers) are also men, not babies: if infantilizing fighting-men bugs you so much, why not apply the same principles to the Iraqis (whose country it is)?
Oh, and Jim R.: Re Post # 3:
"IEDs and suicide attacks and beheading of teachers, government workers, etc. can be done in Iowa, Texas, New Jersey, and NYC just as easily as in Iraq."
Indeed? By whom? I mean, if you have any knowledge of any armed, violent Islamist terrorist cells running around who might do something like this, shouldn't you like, maybe contact Homeland Security and let them know? Or have they spamblocked your emails?
The American people want the troops home because they recognize that the Neo-Con cabal never had any idea of what it was doing and led the country into this swamp. The problem is that this administration never had a comprehensive, cohesive or workable plan for the post war environment or for the Our foreign policy in the Region, generally.
The choice is not between fighting to victory or giving up. It is between Looking at our position in the Middle East sensibly and shaping our policy on a sober and reasonable assessment of our present policy.
The Neo-Con Vision has been exposed for what it always was, a naive oversimplification of the world and especially that of the Middle East. The American people see this very clearly.
A strategic withdrawal is not a defeat. Tying down a large part of you forces following a failed policy is.
Let's see if I've got this right, Capotal C: I'm expected to police these comments on an hourly basis, read them all in detail, and respond to every order by every commenter with alacrity, no matter how rudely and imperiously it's couched. And if I don't, of course I'm a liar.
Actually, even bloggers have other and better things to do with their time. And I usually tend not to respond at all to gratuitious rudeness and insults, either in life or online---but hey, that's just a quirk of mine.
But I will make a quick exception here and say that, if you look at the appropriate link in my post ("that concern is often embedded") it leads to an older post of mine on the subject of the attitude of many (certainly not all) liberals towards the military. I will also say that those attitudes have been evidenced by statements beginning way back in the Vietnam era and continuing to the present (recent ones seemed to reach a peak in discussions about Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, for example), as well as frequent incorrect assumptions about the low educational and economic level of current recruits.
But I will make a quick exception here and say that, if you look at the appropriate link in my post ("that concern is often embedded") it leads to an older post of mine on the subject of the attitude of many (certainly not all) liberals towards the military.
Why do you think I brought this up to begin with? Because following your link does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the quoted phrases you made...
1) "those poor, benighted, undereducated, oppressed troops"
2) ""those babykillers, brutes, torturers"
...are anything other than your own fabrication or invention. As this amazing waffle make clear:
"I will also say that those attitudes have been evidenced by statements beginning way back in the Vietnam era and continuing to the present (recent ones seemed to reach a peak in discussions about Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, for example), as well as frequent incorrect assumptions about the low educational and economic level of current recruits."
It is clear you are intentionally trying to play the propogandists favorite game of attempting to link SPECIFIC charges against SPECIFIC GROUPS:
"The Democrats in Congress---and the few Republicans who agree with them---who've been pushing for a troop withdrawal"
and then
"Those who are pushing withdrawal and the cutting of funds are concerned with a variety of matters, first and foremost politics. But I would guess that some of them do indeed have a sincere concern for the safety of the troops. Unfortunately, that concern is all too often embedded in a combination of patronizing condescension ("those poor, benighted, undereducated, oppressed troops") and disapproval ("those babykillers, brutes, torturers")."
From the NeoNeo central office: "I have a background as a therapist, and my politics make me a pariah in my profession, too."
So the question that arises, then, is whether this highly dishonest excercise in propoganda and newspeak is simply some kind of Post-9/11 PTSD therapy for you? At the moment, that's the best interpretation I can come up with to explain this obvious mendacity.
A pubic cry for help, perhaps?
Furthermore, I'll go out on a limb and guess you're an Arab-hating Jew with Militant Zionist sympathies. That's often what the "I was a Democrat but 9//11 changed everything" comment means.
Your Republican President's idea of "Supporting the Troops":
White House: 3.5 percent pay hike unnecessary
ARMY TIMES
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday May 16, 2007 17:34:13 EDT
Troops don’t need bigger pay raises, White House budget officials said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy laying out objections to the House version of the 2008 defense authorization bill.
The Bush administration had asked for a 3 percent military raise for Jan. 1, 2008, enough to match last year’s average pay increase in the private sector. The House Armed Services Committee recommends a 3.5 percent pay increase for 2008, and increases in 2009 through 2012 that also are 0.5 percentage point greater than private-sector pay raises.
The slightly bigger military raises are intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today. Under the bill, HR 1585, the pay gap would be reduced to 1.4 percent after the Jan. 1, 2012, pay increase.
Bush budget officials said the administration “strongly opposes� both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases “unnecessary.�
Let's see, you decide that neoneo is using an unsupported straw-man argument in a thread on Iraq. This obviously makes him a jew. Not just any jew, but an "Arab-hating Jew with Militant Zionist sympathies".
Don't think I need to go out on a limb to figure out what you are...
I feel sorry for the genuine leftists here, they make substantive and insightful arguments, but the signal to noise ratio is rather atrocious sometimes.
First of all, NeoNeo is a female. Follow the link to her website and see the picture.
Secondly, I may be wrong about her cultural orientation (that is what the word "guess" means), but at least I'm trying to understand the source of her blatant lies and disinformation. I think I should be commended for this, if anything.
Third, what is it about my comments that allows you to jump to the conclusion that I'm a "leftist"?
Fourth, I'll point out YET AGAIN that neoneo has not yet substantiated the origin of the quotes she provided. When one goes back to her website to find this info, as she suggests I do, no evidence whatsoever is found.
Why don't you decide for yourself, treefrog, whether she's using an "unsupported straw-man argument" (what I would call LYING in this instance), instead of only focusing your attention on my half-hearted (and politically incorrect) efforts to derive some understanding of a person whose mind was, by her own accounts, traumatized by 9/11, and cannot think clearly as a consequence?
Why in the world would anyone want to engage in anything even resembling a discussion with such an obvious bore as yourself? You have no manner beyond hectoring nor any insight to offer. In addition you seem to feel it is required of people to respond to you. Overall, you're like a person who walks into another's house, vomits on the rug, and then demands they clean it up. I presume you are not like this in real life since it would be almost impossible for people to stand you.
By way of a hint, since you have obviously missed this, hitting the all caps key does not mark you as a person of emphasis, but merely one of a thousand rants one spaces past every day on the net. There's nothing "politically incorrect" in what you say. If there was anything to it at all it would be painfully politically correct, but it would have the same nul content.
While I deplore Capotal C's manner, I have to defend the substance of his or her argument and share in the frustration over Neo's refusal to substantiate any of the claims she makes about the opinions of others. It is quite true that following any of the links she provides in her post here simply take you to other posts of hers that have the same deragatory comments about others' opinions but without a single reference.
I am one of those, along with millions others, who are pushing for withdrawal and I know of no instance in which I or others accuse US troops of being baby killers as neo claims. In the end, as deplorable as Capotal C's manner is, hers is much more deplorable...and she should be held to account.
Vandy
Nice analogy, but here's a better one. Neoneo has extended an open invitation to a party bashing Democrats by regurgitating lies. Those who don't mind the stench can join her in wallowing in the propoganda and hatred. Those who are induced to regurgitate themselves (it's a reflex, you know) are asked to leave. Just because you can tolerate the puke that began this thread don't mean anyone with normal sensitibilites has to.
And thanks, mark, for stepping around the mess to see what the main problem is here. Although I agree that my approach is distasteful, it is merely a reflection of the drivel that began the thread. If neoneo wants clean conversation, she should offer some to begin with. Like I said above to vandy, I don't see any reason to behave any better than the host.
Capotal C,
I do understand and share your frustration over the thoughtless propaganda that was Neo's post here. However, you crossed a line with the jew remark that put you knee deep in the sort of muck she's bathing in. At that point you risk losing the substance of your argument.
Dear Cappy, The filth here seems to be tracked in on your shoes. You should take care not to dwell in sewage. It makes you less than compelling. Even to coprophagous insects who might otherwise enjoy your production.
Hey Capitol C, as the host, I'll suggest that your next comment rise in tone pretty far from the last one or it will be your last for a while.
Feel free to disagree and challenge neo, or me, or anyone else here. But leave the bile at home.
A.L.
Sorry mark, he didn't just cross the line. He's trying to understand "the source of her blatant lies and disinformation" and someone "whose mind was, by her own accounts, traumatized by 9/11, and cannot think clearly as a consequence", ok.
So the most obvious explanation, to him, for why someone would be a, in his terms, lying propagandist would be that they are...jewish?
He didn't just cross the line, he's been living across it for some time.
Nor do I buy the placement of such outright racism on a lower level than the usual (and thorougly bi-directional) over the top partisan poo flinging contests that would make your statement "In the end, as deplorable as Capotal C's manner is, hers is much more deplorable" in any way valid.
Or at least I've always found good old fashioned racism more deplorable than good old fashioned politics.
"The Troops" don't think anything - our army is not a monolith. I've met plenty of soldiers who think Iraq is a disaster, and plenty of soldiers who think we are winning. Most soldiers have a very limited perspective of how the war is going - that's why we have leaders to make decisions and we don't let the soldiers vote - we're not Bolsheviks. Both the right and the left try to make hay with "what the troops think." Honestly, I don't care. The big picture is clear - Iraq is a chaotic 3rd world country that will never be relevant to the world economy except for it's oil wealth. If we leave tomorrow, it will be hard on our Iraqi "friends" on the ground (to extent they really are our friends), but will not result in a "weakening" of the US any more than our withdrawal from Lebanon did under Reagan. The fact is most Americans don't want to die to save Iraqis. The idea that "Al Qaeda will follow us home" is so stupid it doesn't even deserve a retort.
There's nothing "racist" about what I said, and I think I explained myself well enough to make it clear I am not prejudiced either. Guess what...I'm Jewish myself.
I am party to the frequent accusation that all "Liberals" are all of like mind (gee, accourding to Neoneo we think US troops are idiots) because of a series of qualities they/we supposedly all share...and this has, in the Neocon world, a very high predictive and diagnotic power which can explain a lot. Never, and I mean NEVER, have I seen the same kind of response to this dangerous prejudice as is taking place here because I used the word "JEWISH", clearly because it is not as easy to associate it with a historically persecuted group. Don't think this copout isn't a transparent failure on your part to confront the real issue.
If you are too gentile of sensitibilities (and, reading the comments here, that's a laugh) to even consider the possibility that a person who is raised in the Jewish faith might actually believe that Israel is their ancient historic home and that those who attack it are enemies and sub-human animals, and that this just maybe could factor in to their views of Arab terrorists, then you're just putting blinders on yourself.
But go ahead and keep up the faux outrage...if that's all you got, by all means use it and use it often....
Take heed, mark, you're just playing into their bullcrap by allowing the points to be divereted towards a manufactured controversy. If that's what you gotta do to have the people here pretend to listen to you...then that's what you gotta do, right brother? But don't think it's gonna win you any respect where it really counts.
If there's nothing racist or prejudiced about what you said, than perhaps you'd care to share the logical chain from a 'liar and propagandist' to a 'Arab-hating Jew with Militant Zionist sympathies'. I'm sure it's a good one...
"Guess what...I'm Jewish myself."
Telling that you think that even matters.
"If you are too gentile [sic - fun freudian slip that...] of sensitibilities (and, reading the comments here, that's a laugh) to even consider the possibility that a person who is raised in the Jewish faith might actually believe that Israel is their ancient historic home and that those who attack it are enemies and sub-human animals, and that this just maybe could factor in to their views of Arab terrorists, then you're just putting blinders on yourself."
Funny, I've read the post a couple of times, it's about the troops, and perceptions and morale. It barely even mentions Iraq, and the points would be valid if it were about Afghanistan, S. Korea, or anywhere else we had troops in a controversial mission. Nothing at all about Israel, Arabs, or even terrorists. Why did you feel the need to drag Israel in here I wonder?
"But go ahead and keep up the faux outrage"
Because outrage over racism can only be a ploy to distract from something else?
"If that's what you gotta do to have the people here pretend to listen to you...then that's what you gotta do, right brother? But don't think it's gonna win you any respect where it really counts."
Uh oh, is mark is about to get voted off the island for insufficient ideological purity? Forced to commit seppuku? Lose his membership card? Get a really stern talking to?
Good lord, in an original post featuring over the top stupid sterotypes of leftists, in walks a living breathing example...irony anyone?
The welfare of American troops is not the main issue. Not at all. Service is voluntary, except possibly for reservists, and if anything recruitment has increased. The business of a soldier is to go in harm's way for his country; else what is he for?
However, that does NOT mean that wasting and continuing to waste soldiers' lives in a pointless war, started for domestic political reasons and continued for slightly different domestic political reasons, is justifiable.
Nor is the immense waste of money and other resources involved. America, and the rest of the world as well, has huge problems that are not being addressed because of this distraction, for reasons of lack of cash and lack of time and talent to consider them. These include global warming (if you are a denier, then make that possibly global warming), resource depletion (peak oil, rapidly depleting strategic minerals), ecological destruction (probably hundreds of species per week), overpopulation and, on the horizon, the potentially catastrophic problems that could be caused by nanotech.
And the money and talent that could be used for all this is instead being ground into the sand of Iraq.
America has the power to stop all the problems with Islamic terrorism, or at least most of them, by making the entire region irrelevant. No regular reader of this blog can fail to know how. And there isn't much time left, before the abovementioned problems make it impossible to spend the resources needed.
One aspect of moral courage is the capacity to admit that you have screwed up and take appropriate action - and take your punishment. As far as an outsider can see, nobody in the American administration has that sort of courage.
It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Bush's wish to improve his party's electoral chances and to impress his daddy could result in the extinction of humanity, or indeed of all life on Earth.
Here's the kind of person NeoNeo associates with. From her website:
---
This week’s podcast: Rabbi (�Shalom in the Home�) Shmuley Boteach on the Sanity Squad
The Squad interviews special guest Rabbi Shmuley Boteach this week, the host of TLC’s series “Shalom in the Home.� If you’ve never seen the show, it’s definitely worth a look; in each episode, Rabbi Shmuley takes a large van and spends ten days visiting a family in need of therapy. If this sounds like some sort of Saturday Night Live sketch, it’s not. Trust me, Rabbi Shmuley (columnist, author of many books, Oxford-trained theologian, and father of eight) does some marvelous things to help the families involved.
Join Siggy, Dr. Sanity, Shrink, and me [Neoneocon] as we discuss the prevalence of conspiracy theories today in the first segment, and then talk to our guest in the second half.
---
Go ahead and google "Rabbi Boteach" and "Zionist" to find out where he stands on Israel and Arabs. You'll see that I am SPOT ON in my critique of Neoneo.
At last...Capotal C is going to rip away the curtains and reveal the horrible truth about neoneo.
Graphic video of her eating babies? Sinister financial statements of her vast wealth manipulating the world like a puppet? A picture of her ass with a star of david branded into it?
Nope, she's interviewing Rabbi Boteach.
RABBI BOTEACH? Are you kidding me? You're not just an anti-semite, you are a pathetic anti-semite, I mean, c'mon, Rabbi BOTEACH? Is that really the best you could do? We'll skip right past the whole bit about how she's interviewing him, not worshipping him, and move on to RABBI BOTEACH? I can't stop laughing.
Out of morbid curiousity I actually googled "Rabbi Shmuley Boteach Zionist". Only one of the top ten webpages really referenced politics (unless his membership in the College Zionist organization makes him automatically guilty?), and that was an article on David Dukes website blasting him for comments he made after Katrina about how whites weren't doing enough to help integrate blacks into America. Moving on to his papers posted on his website, a quick skim through gives me he believes in Israel's right to exist, right to defend itself, supported the settlements, and believed Israel should try and help it's neighbouring Arab populations by encouraging democracy via example and support and try to help Arabs overcome the tyranny and poverty they've been mired in. Yep this guy's a real whacko alright...
Seriously, when in a hole, stop digging...although you are providing serious comic value...
Rabbi Boteach's position on Bush and the war in Iraq.
Maybe a little more digging is what you need to do, treefrog.
How Bush has embarrassed Europe
Posted: March 12, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
The presidential campaign is now on. Americans will, in a few months time, choose their next president. Europeans, however, have already made their decision. The New York Times recently reported that surveys in Western Europe have John Kerry at 95 percent, with Nader taking up the remaining percentage points and Bush getting virtually no support. Lucky for us that Europeans don't choose our president. It is worth examining, however, for a few moments, this European antipathy toward George Bush.
Two hundred and eighty million Americans are getting a taste of what it's like to be Jewish. USA Today, America's most-circulated daily, last year reported on its front page that American tourists on the continent are being attacked by their European hosts. From Paris to Munich to Rome to Amsterdam, Americans are being spat on and yelled at by passersby.
One American male reported that a pretty young European girl had walked over to him to ask for a light for her cigarette. He obligingly took out his lighter – but when she saw the American flag emblazoned on its side, she passed on his offer and walked away without saying a word.
A mother and daughter said they were disgusted when they saw a sign that said, "Shoot Bush, Not Saddam."
Then there is the constant haranguing at the hands of taxi drivers who either drive straight by Americans without picking them up, or subject them to lengthy diatribes while taking them to their destinations. Talk about a bad bargain. Not only do you get attacked, you also have to pay for it.
So, what to do if you're just an innocent American who wants to see the Louvre? Here, USA Today delivered advice on their front page that I never in my life believed I would see. They actually advised American tourists traveling abroad to disguise the fact that they are Americans. Some of the hints included speaking less boisterously, as Americans are famously noisy, not wearing clothing with overt patriotic displays like an American flag, and, presumably, not immediately telling the taxi driver that George W. Bush is your golfing buddy, or that you enjoy hunting in Texas.
When I lived in England for 11 years serving as rabbi at Oxford University, I became familiar with the practice of more than a few British Jews removing their kippot while at university, and later while at work in London, for fear of being discriminated against by superiors or attacked by anti-Semites.
But who would have thought that one could be a citizen of the most powerful nation in the history of the world and still have to hide a T-shirt with the Statue of Liberty while standing under the Arc de Triomphe?
For 2,000 years, Jews have asked themselves the question an increasing number of Americans are now asking: Why do they hate us? Is it possible that the underlying causes of anti-Semitism are similar to the underlying causes of anti-Americanism?
When I lived in Oxford, I heard all kinds of academic theories proffered as to the cause of anti-Semitism, but few seemed as straightforward as the reason given by the first documented, genocidal anti-Semite – the biblical Hitler – Haman. In asking King Ahasuerus for the authority to slaughter all the Jews in the ancient Persian empire, he says: "There exists a people, dispersed and scattered among the nations, in all the provinces of your kingdom. And yet their values are entirely different from everyone else's."
Jewish singularity, Jewish peculiarity, a refusal to blend in and be like everybody else is what foments hatred in Haman's breast. Why do you Jews hold yourselves aloof? Why don't you just become like everybody else? Do you think you're better than us?
Add to this the Jewish penchant for promoting social justice and a steadfast commitment to espousing morality and you have the perfect formula for hating the foreigner who not only rejects your way of life while living in your country, but makes you feel inferior, to boot.
The Talmud says that Mount Sinai (literally, "mountain of hatred") was given its name because after the Jews received the Torah and committed themselves to lives of ethical virtue, the enmity of the world's inhabitants – who now stood out as immoral – descended heatedly upon them.
You see the same antipathy from Europeans directed at George W. Bush. Before Bush, Europeans could look at Americans and speak of a common Western heritage. But along came Bush and upset the whole applecart. He divided the world into good guys and bad guys, those who are with us and those who are against us.
He dared to use words like "Axis of Evil," even of countries that European nations wanted to do business with. He threw God into his language at every opportunity. Most importantly, he removed from power the most loathsome creature on earth while the rest of the world turned a blind eye to Saddam's brutality. And by doing so, George W. Bush made the Europeans feel less moral and worthy.
Who is this guy? Does he think he's better than us? What – we're not moral? Heck, we're better than him. He's a warmonger, and we are men of peace.
And so, just as the nations of the world always had to kill the Jewish message of morality and justice by killing the messenger – first literally and then, when it was no longer in vogue, by impugning their motives and accusing them of trying to take over the world – the same character assassination was applied to George W. Bush. "Want to know the real reason Bush went to war in Iraq? All that talk of good and evil is pure hullabaloo. He wants the oil, darn it. He wants a new American colony. This is Pax Americana. He may be a Christian, but his designs are Jewish. He will stop at nothing less than world domination."
Bush of course was literally accused – by Rep. James of Moran of Virginia and others – of being a pawn of the Jews, preparing to attack Iraq only because he is a slave to American Jewish interests, whose foremost concern is the state of Israel.
So the Jewish hypocrites, who talk of morality but really want to take over the world, have now enslaved George Bush, another hypocrite who talks of morality but really wants to take over the world.
At the root of the Arab hatred of Israel is the simple fact that Israel makes the Arabs look bad. Israel is a democracy, while the Arabs live in tyranny. Israel is literate, while tens of millions of Arabs are, tragically, illiterate. The Arabs claim to be strong, but Israel has proven them weak. Israel is a foreign bacillus contaminating Arab pride.
Likewise, George W. Bush makes European leaders look bad, and he makes them look weak. They are not prepared to fight for their convictions because they have no convictions. It is not that they speak French while he speaks English. Rather, he speaks the biblical language of right and wrong, while they speak the contemporary language of "Let's make a deal."
More than a decade of living in Europe convinced me that Europeans revel in their laidback lifestyle (and its casual and easygoing ambiance is what makes Europe a favorite vacation destination for Americans). So when they hear that a genocidal murderer named Saddam Hussein has slaughtered more than a million of his own people, they do not immediately spring into action.
Their first reaction is: Must we do something about this, or can we safely ignore it?
The Europeans hate George Bush because they see him as an agitator – someone who stirs the pot when all they want is peace and quiet. They hate the Jews for the same reason.
Going back to Moses, Isaiah and Jeremiah, the Jews have thundered against injustice and railed against oppression. Moses became a leader not when he delivered a fiery speech to a party convention, but when he refused to turn away from a Hebrew slave being beaten by an Egyptian and pretending that he just hadn't seen. He smote the Egyptian and rescued the oppressed slave – even though by so doing he forever forfeited the pampered life of an Egyptian prince.
Had Moses attended the Jacques Chirac school of biblical policy, he would have sent in arms inspectors to remove the whip from the Egyptian's hands, after which they would have negotiated some lucrative deal to build pyramids together.
America and the Jews are teaming up take over the world. But it is a conquest of ideas rather than armies, and you can be sure that when they give it back, it will be in much better shape than when they took it.
"Some of the hints included speaking less boisterously, as Americans are famously noisy, not wearing clothing with overt patriotic displays like an American flag, and, presumably, not immediately telling the taxi driver that George W. Bush is your golfing buddy, or that you enjoy hunting in Texas."
Sounds like good advice in general. Im not entirely sure somebody wearing an American flag t-shirt in Europe shouldnt be subject to ridicule, although the rest is pretty ridiculous.
So let me see if I'm reading this right.
You're going to prove that you are, in fact, not anti-semitic. You do so by showing that neoneo is quite evil. Why is she evil? Because she's associating, willingly, with....(drumroll)...a jew.
Ah, but not any jew, as the article above shows, he's a jew whose, gasp, proud of his jewish heritage. Worse, he believes jews hold themselves to a high moral standard that, hold on to your chairs ladies and gentlemen, may make them...unpopular.
To cap the issue, he says this is a GOOD THING.
I mean, my God, this violates everything we learned in high school, clearly the man is a monster, enough of a monster to forever tar anyone who has dealings with him.
So, you're proof that your not anti-semitic is to show your obsessive hatred towards jews?
Treefrog...this ain't about me or what I believe...it's about Neoneo lying through her teeth in her post. If you want to ignore that to attack me, then go ahead, but that don't make the lies true. Since you have not seen fit to address this issue in your ongoing effort to prove something that cannot be proven, I will assume you're OK with it.
I already admitted earlier in the thread that I might be wrong in my assessment of her base motives, and certainly this little sidebar has been entertaining (in the sense that it's always amusing to witness someone continually distorting arguments and erecting straw men), but that's all that will be said about it for the moment. Draw whatever conclusion you want...I care not at all what you think you think.
Neoneo's use of unsubstantiated quotes is a good example of the fairly standard technique of putting words in the opposition's mouth. It works because it fits the popular stereotypes of one side about the other. The left calls the right fascists, the left calls the right commies. Neither is really accurate but, well, there we are. You get the picture.
It's fairly standard political mudslinging, it ain't pretty, but it's been going on since the founding of the Republic, it's equal opportunity, and it hasn't collapsed us yet. It's certainly worthwhile to challenge it, but if you're going to get completely bent out of shape over it, politics isn't for you.
What got me about your post was that you immediately decided she was a jew (and of the evil militant zionist type at that). On what basis? The only basis apparent is your belief that she is a lying, propagandizing, right winger (who's interviewing a jew of a right wing nature).
Would it be ok if someone posted a news story about someone holding up a convenience store and I posted how that obviously made the criminal a black man? Or if someone gets drunk and rolls his truck and I say he's obviously a Native American?
We're trying to play political checkers here and you're pissing on the board. Please stop.
Is there any glimmer of a clue going off in your head over why your comment was so incredibly ugly?
Err, that should have read, 'the right calls the left commies'...
Well said. I was about to post something to the effect that raw meat gets rancid pretty fast. I like your metaphor better.
Or try this metaphor on...
If you find Neoneo's comments to be inflammatory, the real win from a quality-WoC-post standpoint is to calmly say so, and address the substance if any of what she says -- not to try to top her with your own custom blend of chili seasonings.
WoC is not a chili cookoff. There are lots of blogs that are; if that's what you're looking for, it would be well if you moved along.
Or at least that's what I make of the WoC comments policy.
Nort, with his Marshal's hat hanging by the fireplace.