Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Doesn't the quote you cited contain several contradictions? First of all, there are indications in past wars that military leaders have been _more_ reluctant to use force, not generally "hawkish" about using military force.

Second, if military service in itself is not a prerequisite for making decisions about employing military force, then why is the author more willing to trust military leaders on the "stay-the-course" issue? Hasn't he negated that argument? So the logic of this essay appears to be internally inconsistent.

Besides that, it's pretty obvious from the daily bombings in Baghdad that "stay-the-course" is not working. Something else is needed.

Posted by Bill Towson at July 24, 2006 06:07 AM

Darn it Richard, I would love to get involved in that, but my money's all tied up with a Nigerian business scheme right now. It's going to make me incredibly rich!

Posted by B.Brewer at July 24, 2006 06:15 AM

"it's pretty obvious from the daily bombings in Baghdad"

Typical, drawing a conclusion from one data point while ignoring all others.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at July 24, 2006 07:49 AM

Those who use the chickenhawk slur are particularly interesting because they seem to be implying that there's something wrong with the system we have, that of civilian control of the military. Would these people prefer then that we live in a military dictatorship?

(I think military-types are not necessarily more or less hawkish than the general populace, but they probably generally have a different perspective on when/where it is wise to use force.)

Posted by Sameer Parekh at July 24, 2006 07:52 AM

First, I agree with Jeff that "Chicken Hawk" isn't an argument. It's simply a dumb remark when the commentor no longer has the ability to develop a coherent argument in a debate.

However, I'll go further than Jeff in pointing out how dishonest the comment is... I support the war in Iraq, and I am not in the military. I'm not in the military thanks to '41s "Peace Dividend" cutbacks in 1992 and subsequent military cutbacks during the Clinton Administration. Even with vision correctable to 20/20, my 20/600 vision prevented me from obtaining a military contract during a time of large reductions in force. I know several people disqualified for asthma, and I know one guy almost disqualified on weight, until he forced a rarely used (rarely used to allow qualification) test that determined his weight was almost entirely muscle with very little fat. In otherwords, he was almost disqualified for being too inshape. Just last year, a friend's son was disqualified because he had difficulty breathing after some drills. It was a one time occurrence, but that's was enough.

Fact is, not everyone who wants to actively serve our military is allowed to serve. With major cutbacks in defense spending, the military must choose the absolute fittest to serve. Since I know the "Chicken Hawk" argument is a pointless debate tactic, I almost never respond to it. However, the one thing that always think of is: "does this person support increased military spending?" Congress sets the size of the military, so its up to Congress to increase funding levels. I support a larger and better equiped military, and have done so for over a decade.

Posted by Leland at July 24, 2006 08:16 AM

Why do people always think this?

After all, US foreign policy would be more hawkish, not less, if decisions about war and peace were left up to members of the armed forces.

Mr. Jacoby must not be a veteran, most veterans know and believe the old saying, "Nobody hates war like a warrior." They are the ones who fight and die and see their friends killed and maimed. Not to mention the other obvious item, if the military was in charge, wars would probably be over much quicker through use of more force.

Soldiers tend to be politically conservative, hard-nosed about national security, and confident that American arms make the world safer and freer.

This is true, but it's stated backwards. Politically conservative people are MORE likely to become soldiers than the liberals. Liberal kids are out saving the world for the dolphins and hugging bunnies, and holding Cindy Sheehan's coat.

The appellation Chicken Hawk was, is, and will always be stupid, stupid, stupid. Its very usage is what the users, mostly liberals, always say is wrong, it's divisive. It is usually followed by some far reaching idea like PULLING OUT of whatever place we are currently fighting for someone's freedom

Posted by Steve at July 24, 2006 10:35 AM

Well, since I served, it is obvious that any one like Cindy Sheehan who did not lacks the 'moral authority' to challenge my beliefs...

Posted by Mike Puckett at July 24, 2006 12:40 PM

"Typical, drawing a conclusion from one data point while ignoring all others."

I only listed one data point. I use many to draw my conclusions. Civilian casualties in Iraq are up substantially. Frequency and lethality of explosions are up. Coalition deaths have not decreased. There's a lot of bad news.

But can you provide evidence that indicates that we should stay the course? Do you have data that you can contribute?

Posted by Bill Towson at July 24, 2006 01:18 PM

I note we didn't stay the course in Somalia.

Posted by Leland at July 24, 2006 01:40 PM

"There's a lot of bad news"

And there is a lot more good news.

Saddam is no longer in power; he is instead on trail for his life.

His two murderous sons will not succeed him because they are both dead.

Many of his Baathist henchmen are also either dead or locked away.

Iraq's economy, despite all the turmoil, is growing as fast or even faster than it ever has before.

The Iraqi people are free to vote for whoever they wish, for the fist time in ~30 years, and have done so in numbers that shame the US, under threat of death, several times in the past 2 years.

Iraq’s oil production facilities which were being attacked weekly (if not daily) did not suffer even ONE attack for at least a month after Zarqarwis death. In fact I don’t believe there has been such an attack even to the present time.

Iraqi soldiers are taking control of more and more of Iraq every day, depending less on American troops every day. And whereas some Iraqi troops ran when faced with a fight with insurgents early on, now the vast majority will stand and fight and even take the fight to the insurgents.

Thousands of schools have been refurbished to better than pre war condition, over 100 thousand teachers have been trained.

Hundreds of hospitals have re-opened, better equipped than pre war.

New sewer systems are being built in cities across the country, as are new electrical substations and distribution networks.

The port of Umm Qasar is booming with business again.

Seventy percent of Iraqi's say Iraq is a dangerous place, but at the same time 60 percent say that their own neighborhood is safe.

There is much more good news, but you should get the point. And if you don't get the point a list as long as my arm wouldn't change that so I'll stop now.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at July 24, 2006 02:28 PM

Bill says: Civilian casualties in Iraq are up substantially.

That is a shame, what would be worse is if we were the cause, but we're not.

Bill says: Frequency and lethality of explosions are up.

Another way to look at it is that the desperation factor is way up too. Insurgents are desperate to win because they know they're losing and its only a matter of time. They're increasing bombings and hoping the Iraqi troops, which are much more involved than ever before will cut and run like before. Those guys don't run anymore, which tells the insurgents they've lost that edge and their desperation level goes up again.

Bill says: Coalition deaths have not decreased.

Its a war. Troops die, but we support them and mourn their loss. Then we plan, move in, and execute actions that give us victory and the people of Iraq....FREEDOM!

It never ceases to amaze me how you "Doom and Gloom" folks don't, can't, or won't recognize what we're doing here. You're so high and mighty that you fail to remember there are people in this world who do not have the freedoms you enjoy. Do they deserve the freedoms you have? I say yes and I say we do our damndest to give it to them.

Posted by Mac at July 24, 2006 02:59 PM

Got to agree with the posters above that while Jeff Jacoby is right about the "chickenhawk" slur being brain-dead, he doesn't have a clue about those who've served. The military has always been more reluctant to use force than civilians, for all the obvious reasons cited (e.g. they know better the limitations and uncertainty of force).

Maybe it's also worth pointing out that the two most painful and destructive wars in the Republic's history (WW1 and WW2 and excluding the Civil War as a special case), as well as the two most inconclusive (Korea, Vietnam), were begun by left-leaning Democratic Presidents intent on making the world a better place (Wilson, FDR, Truman and Johnson, respectively). That's what happens when you've got an "idealist" for a leader: the sweet, sublime, noble nature of the goal seduces you into tolerating a lot more pain and ugliness in your methods. Idealists really will destroy a village to save it.

That makes GWB's "War on Terror" seem a weird exception, of course. But others have pointed out that GWB is less "conservative" than the left fears or the right hopes. Furthermore, it can be argued that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan went very well -- it's this strange occupation/nation-building thing that is dragging on.

However, at this point it's dragging on without especially involving American deaths. It's mostly Iraqis who are dying, and while that sucks, it's also their right to die in defense of (or attacking) their own government. I believe the military at this point probably loses about as many men to enemy action as they do to training accidents. From that point of view, Iraq is arguably a good thing: the biggest and most realistic live-fire training exercise you can imagine. After a decade in Iraq, the USA and USMC are going to be very, very deadly when it comes to urban/terrorist combat. That may come in handy.

Posted by Carl Pham at July 24, 2006 07:30 PM

There is a funny air of cowardice when those who wish other
people's children to bleed in war are not willing to send themselves
or their children to sruggle and suffer in said war.

A good question to ask is how many advocates of this war have
children in the army or working to make Iraq a better place.

Posted by anonymous at July 24, 2006 09:11 PM

The Navy turned me down - so I'm a different species of hawk, not the chicken variety.

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at July 24, 2006 10:33 PM

"Another way to look at it is that the desperation factor is way up too."

So more violence and higher casualties means we're winning? You don't think that's silly?

"You're so high and mighty..."

Writes the guy who spells "freedom" in all-caps...

This may be hard to understand, but just because somebody recognizes that the situation in Iraq has not improved, and has even gotten worse in recent months, does not make them a "doom and gloom" person. I supported the war, but after three years (and Cecil's ridiculous list includes things that happened 1-2 years ago--ignoring how bad it has gotten in the past year), it has become obvious to me that it is not getting better.

The strategy is not working and only a fool cannot see that.

Posted by Bill Towson at July 25, 2006 04:57 AM

So the ridiculous things that happened a year or two ago don't count any more? Those year old things happen to be HUGE, at least in the eyes of Iraqis. You being a free to do as you wish westerner you might not see the big picture.

The attempts of the insurgents to stop the coming Iraqi democracy should be seen for what they are, as a futile attempt to turn the tide. People like you would have seen the Battle of the Ardennes (1944, not 1914) as evidence that the Allies were loosing.

The strategy is working and only a fool cannot see that.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at July 25, 2006 05:11 AM

Oh, goody, a lecture on cowardice from "anonymous".

Posted by Mike James at July 25, 2006 05:19 AM

Anon says: A good question to ask is how many advocates of this war have
children in the army or working to make Iraq a better place.

Its a question, granted. My children are 6 and younger. I served in the desert. I'm an advocate for the result of te conflict, not the conflict itself. The ends do not justify the means, but the goal for the Iraqi people is a just and good one.

Bill says: So more violence and higher casualties means we're winning? You don't think that's silly?

Are you a mathmetician? This is more than numbers. There is a reason for increased violence and casualties. Look beyond the numbers and see root causes. Its a dangerous area, I'll grant you that, but I think the root cause of the violence increase is desperation because the Iraqi people are now fighting the insurgents and winning too. The Iraqi people lived in fear under Saddam, and now have tasted freedom. I think they're now showing how badly they want it because its not the Iraqis fighting us, its mercs from other countries that cannot let us win.

Bill says: "You're so high and mighty..."

Writes the guy who spells "freedom" in all-caps...

So, talking about freedom in all caps makes me high and mighty? So be it. I'm high on freedom because everyone deserves to be free. That, in my belief, is a basic right afforded to us by God. Mighty? Darn right, because of freedom to choose and decide our own destinies, we are the mightiest ideal in the world. So if freedom in all caps seems elitist to you, then move your butt to Iran and live without freedom for awhile. The human heart yearns to be free and those who shy away from fighting to obtain it are a sad thing to see. Your inability to fight for freedom is not sad because you're not willing to assist in giving freedom to people, its sad because the only reason your against the war is that you don't like the president. War is political, I agree, but the war for political reasons is over, but support for our troops bringing freedom to a formerly oppressed people is a grand goal. If we pull out our troops now, freedom might fail. Does that sit well with you? I know, "If they really want freedom, let them fight for it." They are, and we're helping them succeed. How can anyone not want to help people be free?

Oh, and for the purposes of the starting post..."chickenhawk" is offensive, but the use of "chickendove" was a great point. I'm a hawk, if the goal is right. I'm a hawk when America can do what it does best....lead the world in the rights and articles of freedom.

Posted by Mac at July 25, 2006 06:53 AM

What makes you a "doom and gloom" person is recognizing only the negative aspects, and dismissing the positive out of hand. I've read your comments Bill, and I have no reason to agree with them.

Civilian casualities are up? Apparently you missed out on Iraqi life under Saddam Hussein. Yes, in the last few months, the insurgents have given up attacking coalition forces and decided to terrorize the local population. Bill, have you ever wondered why terrorist come from this region of the world? It's because for decades, they have successfully cowed the civilian population, and now think they can do the same in the Western world. What we are doing in Iraq is showing them that they will not succeed, and already they have given up on attacking US forces. As we continue to arm and train the civilian population, the terrorists will lose against them as well. If you can't understand that strategy, then there is no point in continuation of the debate.

As I noted previously, we didn't stay the course in Somalia. Bill, have you been paying attention to what's going on since we left Somalia? The warlords have taken over the region. Al Qaeda, having been forced out of Afghanistan, is finding Somalia to be a new base of operations. Somalia is a monument to terrorists that it is possible to defeat US politicians and force US soldiers to retreat. It was this knowledge that lead to the motivation to attack the Kobar Towers, the US embassies, the USS Cole, and eventually the World Trade Center. It wasn't until the latter, that US policy changed, and we quit retreating from the fight.

Staying the course in Iraq means not retreating in the face of terrorism. Leaving Iraq now will only convince terrorists that their strategies work. We know that from recent history.

Posted by Leland at July 25, 2006 07:14 AM

A tip of the Hat to Mac who has been over there.

How many others who advocate this war have either served
or have military age children serving?

Posted by anonymous at July 25, 2006 04:16 PM

How many others who advocate this war have either served or have military age children serving?

It doesn't matter. It is a pointless question.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 25, 2006 04:31 PM

Rand says: It doesn't matter. It is a pointless question.

Right on the money Rand.

Posted by Mac at July 26, 2006 06:15 AM

"The strategy is working and only a fool cannot see that."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/25/AR2006072500157_2.html

"President Bush said yesterday that he will send more U.S. forces and equipment to Baghdad as part of a fresh strategy to put down rising sectarian violence, abandoning a six-week-old operation that failed to pacify the strife-torn Iraqi capital and opening what aides called an unexpected new phase of the war.

Playing host to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki at the White House for the first time, Bush sounded unusually dour and acknowledged that the situation in Iraq in many ways has worsened lately. But he vowed to adjust tactics to deal with evolving threats and to keep U.S. forces in Iraq as long as necessary to fortify Maliki's government until it can defend itself."

So now you're calling Bush foolish?

Posted by Bill Towson at July 26, 2006 08:36 AM

No Bill, I am calling YOU foolish.

And if you think the above is a prime example proving some point of yours then you are doubly foolish.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at July 26, 2006 08:53 AM

Bill quotes: ...part of a fresh strategy to put down rising sectarian violence, abandoning a six-week-old operation that failed to pacify the strife-torn Iraqi capital and opening what aides called an unexpected new phase of the war.

rising sectarian violence....for resons already stated that are more likely true than false. A war or conflict you can fight where you don't have to change your strategy doesn't exist. Strategies change all the time and you should already know that since your posts show you as an intelligent individual.

Aides call it an unexpected new phase, but that's the aides. The war room knows and expected it, you can rest assured of that. Besides, now we're back to doing what we've done so well before, help others protect themselves, since the attacks are now not necessarily aimed at us, but to oppress the civilians and cow them again.

Posted by Mac at July 26, 2006 10:32 AM

"And if you think the above is a prime example proving some point of yours then you are doubly foolish."

You insisted that the strategy is working. Bush is now changing the strategy, ergo, you're contradicting Bush.

Now if you're saying that Bush should not change the strategy, that's your right. You can claim all you want that the obviously increased violence in the past several months doesn't mean anything, and that's your right too. And if you want to say that the sky is purple and you're Napoleon, then who are we to call you foolish?

What I find interesting is how you jumped to conclusions, assuming that I was an evil "cut and run" lib. I never said anything like that. In fact, I believe just the opposite. I think that George Bush has gone soft. He's even adopting the Geneva Convention for terrorists at Gitmo, for cripesakes! I think he's become a pansy, and what we should really do is carpet bomb all of Baghdad to make sure that there is no opposition left. Who's with me?

Posted by Bill Towson at July 26, 2006 11:57 AM

Bill, read this slowly so maybe you can understand.

"The strategy is working" does NOT mean, "the strategy is perfect and will never need any tweaking, updating and/or changes of any kind".

Posted by Cecil Trotter at July 26, 2006 01:38 PM

"Stay the course" parlance, by my understanding, typically means keeping US forces in Iraq vs pulling troops out. So, Bill, when you complain about the "Stay the course" strategy, I assume you mean withdraw troops.

As far as changing force level being "the strategy" change, I don't concur. Force level changes have been occuring since early on. The trend is primarily downward, but adding more troops isn't a change in engagement. Besides, there is a major battle occurring in the region. That's rather a new development, and it makes a lot of sense to increase our presence in the area in such a way as to avoid overt inflamation of the situation.

As far as the concept of carpet bombing Baghdad, I don't support Genocide. I think carpet bombing any city, or as some in the past have suggested "turning the area into glowing glass", are ideas held by people who have extremely low regard for human life.

Posted by Leland at July 26, 2006 01:52 PM

Rand

they say at breakfast the chicken is involved, The pig is committed.

In regards to this War, Rand is the chicken.

Posted by anonymous at July 27, 2006 07:58 PM

In regards to this War, Rand is the chicken.

You know, you'd think that morons like you would tire (and perhaps, if you were capable of it, be embarrassed) of continuing with a failed argument. But then, that's probably why you're anonymous. And a coward. At least I've got the guts to put out my out my opinions in my own name. What are you afraid of, anonymous coward?

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 27, 2006 08:38 PM

What's more telling, as a measure of Bush's political standing, is what conservatives are saying these days. Take, for example, National Review's David Frum :

"Hands up, everybody who believes that the 'hundreds' of troops that the Pentagon plans to move from the rest of Iraq into Baghdad will suffice to secure the capital against the sectarian militias now waging war upon the civilian populations of the city? Anybody? No, I didn't think so.

"To take back the capital from the militias that now terrorize it will take thousands, not hundreds, of American plus tens of thousands of Iraqis. No sector in Iraq can spare the loss of so many forces (our current troubles in Anbar date back to the decision in 2004 to shift troops from Anbar to the siege of Fallujah -- when they returned, they discovered that every pro-US informant and ally in the province had been murdered, usually horribly and publicly). So a real plan for success in Baghdad will have to be built upon additional troops from out of area, potentially raising US troop levels back up to the 150,000 or so of late 2005.

"Manifestly, neither the administration nor the Congress will contemplate such a move. Which means, most likely, continuing violence in Iraq and a continuing rise in the power of the militias, especially the Iranian-backed Shiite militias: the Hezbollah of Iraq."

Peggy Noonan comes out and says that people have lost confidence in the president:

"Republicans hearken back to Reagan for two big reasons. The first is that they agreed with what he did. The second is that they believe he was a very fine man. This is not now how they feel about Mr. Bush, at least if my interactions with strangers and party members the past year are a judge. They think Mr. Bush is a good man--that he's got guts and resolve, that he can take a lickin' and keep on tickin'. But they are no longer confident about what he does. They're no longer fully comfortable in their judgment of his policies and actions, or the root thoughts behind them. It gives Reagan an even rosier glow, for he was the last national political figure to fully win their minds and hearts.

"William F. Buckley this week said words that, if you follow his columns, were not surprising. And yet coming from the man who co-fathered the modern conservative movement, carrying the intellectual heft as Reagan carried the political heft, the observation that President Bush is not, philosophically, a conservative, had the power to make one sit up and take notice."

Posted by at July 28, 2006 03:11 PM

Rand seems to take personally any insinuation that he
lacks courage or commitment to see total victory in Iraq.
It would be a simple matter for Rand to take a job
driving a truck in Iraq for one year. It would show that
he has the courage to face the Terrorists and the
commitment to see victory achieved.
It certainly would be more important then writing another
memo on the CEV.

Posted by anonymous at July 28, 2006 05:50 PM

Rand seems to take personally any insinuation that he lacks courage or commitment to see total victory in Iraq.

No, what I take personally is the pollution of my blog with stupid, cowardly, baseless anonymous comments like this one.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 28, 2006 07:06 PM

Spend a year driving a truck for KBR from Kuwait
to baghdad, and you can demonstrate
some courage.

Posted by anonymous at July 28, 2006 07:52 PM

I've never claimed to have "real courage," not that it matters.

All you'd have to do to display real courage (well, actually, not, since there's actually no risk, other than attaching a name to your moronic posts) is to use your real name. What a brave creature, posting idiotic anonymous posts on my blog.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 28, 2006 08:58 PM

I've never claimed to have "real courage," not that it matters.

Kind of ironic, given how huffy you get when someone
uses the word chickenhawk. The only other word that
gets you so wired is "neo-con"

Posted by anonymous at July 28, 2006 09:48 PM

I get "huffy" because it's an idiotic argument, which was the point of this post. And you (hilariously) have nothing to say about your posting cowardice, anonymous moron. Have you no shame at all?

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 28, 2006 10:06 PM

Rand

for someone who believes this war is so important
you seem very reticent to commit your time or
skin to actually achieving victory.

Writing on a blog when men are dying in a cause you believe
does show a lack of integrity

As for anonymity, I have my reasons.

Posted by anonymous at July 29, 2006 10:02 AM

for someone who believes this war is so important you seem very reticent to commit your time or skin to actually achieving victory.

Repetition of stupid arguments doesn't make them any smarter (particularly when written by a moron who can't even seem to find the caps key, or use proper English grammar). It just makes you look increasingly foolish.

Do you support the fire department? Why don't you join up? Do you support having police? Why don't you join up? If you don't do this, you have no moral authority to support the suppression of fires or crime.

Perhaps I blog because I'm a better blogger than I'd be a soldier, at my age and skill level, and can do more to support the war effort that way.

And yes, it's clear what your reasons for anonymity are. You're an idiot who doesn't want to have his name attached to his idiocy. I understand completely. I just find it amusingly ironic that someone so cowardly that he's afraid to even use his own name accuses others of cowardice.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 29, 2006 10:18 AM

damn, last time i checked in on this site you were having this fight. short memories?

the chickenhawk argument is an argument about these peoples' character, it is calling them cowards and warmongers pretty much (and saying that the latter is partially a result of the former). at most it is saying you should take what these people say with a large grain of salt. it is simply pointing out that these people are only bold with other people's lives.

i have never heard a single liberal state the military should take control of the executive branch, only people who serve should be able to talk about foreign policy, or that people should be forced to engage in every single activity that they support. those arguments are all charicatures of liberal positions.

think of the chickenhawk argument as the equivalent of calling kerry a "flip-flopper", except the chickenhawk allegation is more damning (imo-as it implies a lack of respect for life). were conservatives saying only people who had never changed their minds about anything are fit to be president? i dont think they were, i think they were saying it merely suggests they might not be the best leaders. thats fair, though id say this describes just about all politicians. i dont see how its not just as fair to say people who have no visceral aversion to wars, due to cowardice, might more hastily start wars, and so might not be the best commanders in chief.
--
"I think they're now showing how badly they want it because its not the Iraqis fighting us, its mercs from other countries that cannot let us win."

"As we continue to arm and train the civilian population, the terrorists will lose against them as well."

the "mercs from other countries" are a very very small percent of the insurgency. this is not a battle of the civillians/government versus terrorists/mercenaries. we are fighting a civil war. the sectarian death squads are too frequent to ignore. this happens on both sides.

if we are merely in iraq to fight terrorism, then id say weve completed our mission. terrorists are not going to take over iraq. they are simply not going to. the government and various militias are too strong, and the terrorists are too unpopular. it seems we are there to give iraq security. this is a lofty goal, and people must keep in mind that it will take probably over a decade (this is a guess, but id say generous, as im not sure its possible at all at this point). im not all that confident making a trillion dollar bet, especially when its not making us any safer. also, if we are to be the humanitarian power of the world, id like for us to take care of emergency situations, like darfur, before various routine dictatorships, of which there are many.

Posted by at July 29, 2006 07:36 PM

Perhaps I blog because I'm a better blogger than I'd be a soldier, at my age and skill level, and can do more to support the war effort that way.
----

rand,

Do you think you could drive a truck in Iraq?
Do you think you could supervise the repair of a school,
or a water facility, or an airport?
Do you think you could work as a computer technician
in Iraq? I hear the Iraqi's are even blogging.
Perhaps you could go teach classes on Internet, computing,
and noe-con theory.

There are far more jobs in Iraq then just Soldier.

http://jobsearch.about.com/od/internationaljobs/a/iraqjobs.htm

I'm not a fireman, my back isn't strong enough for that.
I have participated in the fire board for a town i lived in.
I knew most of the supervisors at the station. I gave
to the volunteer ambulance company for years when
I lived there.

I am not a cop, but, i've done ride alongs, attended the
civilian police academy and learned a lot about the job.

If the police in my town were in a crisis, and they called
for citizens with rifles to help restore order, i'd be there.
The police in my town aren't in crisis, they aren't under
attack from criminals hourly, they aren't dying by the hundreds.
But if the police in my town were dying and in desperate
need and I were to sit in my comfortable Den blogging
about how they must restore order while I sit there doing
nothing, well, then that is being a chickenhawk.

I do not have to be the Sheriff to believe in Law and Order,
but, if the Sheriff calls for a posse because of the
bad guys and I sit back in my chair? It is cowardice.
To sit in your chair and Demand the sheriff go out
and fight the cole-younger gang, well, then you
are a chickenhawk.

Posted by anonymous at July 29, 2006 08:37 PM

Mac wrote:
"Another way to look at it is that the desperation factor is way up too. Insurgents are desperate to win because they know they're losing and its only a matter of time."

Looks like the top US commander in Iraq thinks Mac is wrong:

"Iraq Moving Toward Civil War, Top U.S. Commanders Say
By William Branigin and Mary Jordan
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, August 3, 2006; 2:22 PM

The top U.S. commander in the Middle East told a Senate panel today that the recent wave of sectarian violence in Iraq threatens to push the country toward an all-out civil war.

Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, commander of the U.S. Central Command, also said U.S. forces could take more casualties as they carry out a new plan to reinforce Baghdad, and he cast doubt on earlier predictions that the U.S. troop level in Iraq could be drawn down this year."

Posted by at August 3, 2006 02:55 PM

Post a comment