Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

it's important on this Memorial Day to remember that it is not our job to protect them, but theirs to protect us

Just because it's their job to protect us, that doesn't mean that it isn't our job to protect them. Your inference at this spot is nonsense. It is indeed our job not throw away soldiers just so that they can be called heroes. What you are asking for is the "Charge of the Light Brigade", which is a perversion of both war and war memorials.

Indeed, the Iraq War is just as futile as the Crimean War was.

The mentality of the Crimean War and the Iraq war is also a perversion of libertarianism, which at times seems to be all that there is to "neolibertarianism".

Posted by at May 28, 2007 10:48 AM

Is there some way I can make absolutely sure that not one tax dollar of mine goes to protect "", above? Like an anti-idiotarian checkoff, or something?

Posted by Jay Manifold at May 28, 2007 12:20 PM

Is there some way I can make absolutely sure that not one tax dollar of mine goes to protect "", above?

In the context of the war in Iraq, I really wish that you could do that. A clear majority of Americans think that the war in Iraq is a mistake, and that there should be a timetable for withdrawal. It would be nice if the other 40%, you included, could prorate Iraq war funding so that none of your tax money went to protect the ungrateful.

But you can't, and it has a lot to do with the way that the Iraq war is fought and continued. First, this year Bush rushed forward with the surge, without Congressional approval or any other popular mandate; then he demanded funding. He was quite open about it, that this was a "you can't stop me" strategy.

Second, none of your tax dollars have yet gone to the Iraq war; the entire war has been fought on credit. That's $430 billion and counting. Eventually the US will withdraw in disgrace, and then the bills will begin to come due. Just as the troops rushed forward this spring, the money has been rushed forward the entire time. So when you finally have to pay taxes for it, the issue will not be the then-ended war; it will be the credit standing of the federal government and the value of the US dollar.

Posted by at May 28, 2007 12:47 PM

Dear ""

"First, this year Bush rushed forward with the surge, without Congressional approval or any other popular mandate; then he demanded funding. He was quite open about it, that this was a "you can't stop me" strategy."

Well, duh! War is not a social welfare policy.

Once in the fight, we fight, preferably to the finish. Lincoln required no "popular mandate" in 1864. Roosevelt required no "popular mandate" to invade the Japanese home islands. Truman CERTAINLY required not "popular mandate" to send Task Force Smith to the Republic of Korea.

Your complaints about "fighting on credit" apply to EVERY war we have ever fought. Since money is fungible, it also applies to every OTHER federal expenditure.

Besides, DoD expenditures are first from the public purse. The deficit expenditures don't start until well down the list of national priorities. Congressional earmarks, for example. You know, the "culture of corruption" the Dems got elected to end.

Finally, prorating my taxes so I don't have to defend you ungrateful naysayers is NOT because of how the "Iraq war is fought and continued". It is because we are One Nation, Indivisible. Every dollar I give in taxes goes to all kinds of things I don't like, regardless of how that program is enacted and conducted.

Be glad you have the anonymity of the internet. Were you ever to utter your prediction of "withdrawal in disgrace" to a veteran of OIF, you would deserve the broken bones and displaced viscera they would want to give you. They wouldn't, of course, because they are soldiers, and have a maturity that your writings lack.

Posted by MG at May 28, 2007 02:41 PM

Once in the fight, we fight, preferably to the finish.

Okay, but the Iraq war is well past its finish. "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed," was Bush's pronouncement 4 years ago. The problem now is that he doesn't like what he won, which is not a good reason to keep fighting.

Lincoln required no "popular mandate" in 1864.

He was up for election, moreover against his own former commander, and he was acutely aware that he needed the backing of the American people.

Roosevelt required no "popular mandate" to invade the Japanese home islands.

He certainly had a popular mandate, regardless of what he required.

Truman CERTAINLY required not "popular mandate" to send Task Force Smith to the Republic of Korea.

I'm not against the Korean War, but the way that it was fought was the beginning of a bad slide in wartime accountability. One red flag was that Congress never declared war in Korea, just as it didn't in Vietnam or Iraq. If supporting the troops is so damn important, what happened to declaring war? (Instead of more weakly "authorizing the use of force.")

Your complaints about "fighting on credit" apply to EVERY war we have ever fought.

The difference between the Iraq war and at least the declared American wars is that it has been coupled to tax cuts instead of tax increases. There may still have been a lot of borrowing, but Lincoln certainly did not mask the Civil War as a freebie. On the contrary, he signed America's first income tax.

Besides, DoD expenditures are first from the public purse.

It may be true that DoD money is part of the regular budget (I don't know what you mean by "first"). However, the Iraq war is almost entirely emergency appropriations, which means that they are as far out of the loop of financial accountability as possible.

Every dollar I give in taxes goes to all kinds of things I don't like

Sure, but we are supposed to have majority rule for that, as only one of several safeguards.

Were you ever to utter your prediction of "withdrawal in disgrace" to a veteran of OIF, you would deserve the broken bones and displaced viscera they would want to give you.

I have no personal criticism of the vast majority of American soldiers in Iraq. Most of them are doing a dangerous job for not all that great pay. Most of them are braver than I am. But even though it's not their fault, their mission is a failure, a failure which is obstinate to the point of disgrace. A lot of the troops agree with that assessment. Many others disagree but at least respect the opinion. The few who feel the need to threaten war opponents back home are not among the honorable majority.

And you can mark these words: The US will withdraw from Iraq in disgrace after Bush leaves office, just like Bush will leave office disgraced by the Iraq war. Anyone who thinks that the media will put a happy face on Iraq after Bush leaves is sorely mistaken.

Posted by at May 28, 2007 03:21 PM

MG should read that article in Armed Forces Journal
entitled "Failure of the Generals" or something like that.

It discusses how the General Staff utterly failed the
Army, the Military, the DoD, The COngress and the
American People by placing careerism first over
what they well knew to be professional military obligations.

That Bush and his cronies were stupid and craven was obvious
to all who had to work with them. That the General staff
did not resign in protest by droves was a moral failure for
All of them.

Posted by anonymous at May 28, 2007 04:52 PM

It is our job to protect them. We need to protect them by making sure that their equipment works, giving them proper counter-insurgency training, and back them up in sufficient numbers (350000-500000) to actually secure the country.

We have failed them at all three.

Posted by at May 28, 2007 05:38 PM

Anonymous,

I read it shortly after it came out. What in particular did you want me to know about it?

Posted by MG at May 28, 2007 06:10 PM

lot's of generals will be known for the disgrace of Iraq.

Posted by anonymous at May 28, 2007 06:16 PM

Do you think it was an act of great leadership to invade Iraq
with only dozens of arabic translators in the force?

Do you think it was an act of leadership to not have a plan
for occupation after the end of kinetic operations?

Do you think it was an act of leadership to not have a
budget plan for occupation until after 5 years went by?

Do you think it was an act of leadership to not have
any plan for IED's beyond welding scrap on Hummers?

Posted by anonymous at May 28, 2007 07:27 PM

Rand, might I suggest that the Name field be required to post comments? Far too often I have seen cowards posting the most ludicrous things here, hiding behind their anonymity.

To the anonymi, grow some cojones and sign your name to that which you purport to believe - unless you don't actually believe the words coming out of your keyboards, in which case it is simply better that you not post a comment at all.

Posted by Ed Minchau at May 28, 2007 07:48 PM

Mr. Anonymous,

I think you are misapplying the word "leadership".

A historian's approach would go something like this:

What effort did the uniformed leadership of the DoD make to ascertain the future nature of conflict?

What conclusions did they reach?

Why did they reach those particular conclusions, rather than others?

What external, non-doctrinal influences affected their decision-making?

Once they reached conclusions, what actions did they decide needed to occur?

How did they prioritize them?

How did they implement them?

What barriers to implementation occurred?

In all of the above, what biases did the uniformed leadership bring into the process, and how well /poorly did they address those biases?

----

With that caveat, I will address your questions:

Do you think it was an act of great leadership to invade Iraq
with only dozens of arabic translators in the force?

The number of translators is irrelevant to deciding to invade. If the US military needed more, then the Army (the proponent agency for language training), and the commissioned officer responsible for that program, was responsible.

Do you think it was an act of leadership to not have a plan
for occupation after the end of kinetic operations?

GEN Franks, CENTCOM commander, was responsible for Phase IV planning. If, as the AFJ article suggests, he didn't take ownership of Phase IV, then he was wrong, and failed in this aspect of command.

Do you think it was an act of leadership to not have a
budget plan for occupation until after 5 years went by?

Budget planning is a continual process. When a situation is fluid (as warfare is), one doesn't "do" budget forecasting. The premise of your question is faulty.

Supplementals are an appropriate mechanism for dealing with the contingencies and uncertainty of warfare. A "budget plan", as you seem to be using the phrase, is not an appropriate tool to warfare. Review the "budget planning" of any other war, in any other nation, for a sanity check. Please do be thorough -- no cherry picking!

Do you think it was an act of leadership to not have
any plan for IED's beyond welding scrap on Hummers?

Materiel procurement is at the tail end of a process that starts with senior uniformed leadership directing threat assessment. That leads to doctrinal changes, which leads to changes in combat organizational structure (including both soldier specialization AND equipment), which leads to equipment R&D, demonstration / validation, field testing, and acceptance. THEN the materiel needs to be integrated.

This is all an ongoing process, that starts years prior to the actual need. With that background, here is my answer to this question:

The plan to deal with IED's incorporated far more than hillbilly armor. The premise of your question is faulty.

As an aside to other readers, I should say that the AFJ article critiquing the generals should provide a clear understanding of the role of uniformed military officials. They are trusted by political authorities, whether or not they SHOULD be trusted. Those of you who want to bash the President, bash away, but reserve your biggest bashing for the generals of the 1990's. They designed and built the Army that we had in 2003.

And spare a little energy for bashing then-President Clinton. The "peace dividend" that buttressed his budget surpluses came out of what the Army of 2003 COULD have been.

Posted by MG at May 28, 2007 07:54 PM

Mr. Simberg,

I am okay with anonymous posting, so long as they have at least emailed you their "real" identity.

At least, they may be more thoughtful about their posts.

Posted by MG at May 28, 2007 07:56 PM

In the middle of a war

An illegal occupation, actually.

in which some people say "support the troops by bringing them home,"

Now the vast majority of Americans...

crassly treating them as victims for cynical political purposes

They're only victims in a lesser sense--it's not like refusing these illegal orders would put them in front of a firing squad. But they are being disgraced and their lives wasted, and that waste is costing this country dearly in every arena of national security, diplomacy, and economics. As for "cynical political purposes," I would remind you that the Republican Party made the war and occupation the centerpiece of two election cycles--not as an issue, but by terrorizing domestic opposition with accusations of disloyalty. A thinking person could be forgiven for thinking that, perhaps, so many people were murdered for a Republican campaign strategy, and now you accuse people of "cynicism" for wanting it to end. I just wonder if there's an end to the hypocrisy and inhumanity of this debacle's authors and propaganda auxiliaries.

it's important on this Memorial Day to remember that it is not our job to protect them, but theirs to protect us

It is not their job to protect us, it is their job to defend the Constitution, and our job to do likewise by ensuring a political chain of command more or less loyal to that mission. We have both failed, and our response to that failure will determine our future as a republic, if indeed we have one.

and how astonishingly bravely and selflessly they do it.

Wasted courage. You might as well throw priceless art on a fire and gush at how brightly it burns.

Both men often lamented to me how frustrating it was to be back home and realize that the average American is not aware of practically any of the progress that’s been made in Iraq.

Neither is the average soldier in Iraq. That's why the Cheney regime banned blogging and bulletin board posting by combat personnel. Now we can get the "impartial, complete story" from official White House press releases. I'm sure they will back up everything said in Yon's comments, and indeed yours Rand--although that goes without saying, doesn't it?

Posted by Brian Swiderski at May 28, 2007 09:04 PM

I'm just in awe at the audacity of some to continue to bash the Military on Memorial day of all days. These are probably the same people that say "I support the troops" yet they can't even chill out with their sniveling idiocy for 1-freakin'-day.

Posted by Josh Reiter at May 28, 2007 09:27 PM

I'm just in awe at the audacity of some to continue to bash the Military on Memorial day of all days.

Look, Memorial Day is for honoring the fallen, not for honoring the military. I'm all for honoring the fallen, especially the ones in Iraq because they are most of the fallen these days. They should air biographies of them on TV all day if you ask me. And they can slip in the 1/9 as many who died in Afghanistan, as long they keep the lists separate.

As for not being able to chill out, the post at the top, and its links, are blatant attempts to exploit Memorial Day to corral support for the war in Iraq. So, you know, the best way to honor the fallen is not to add to their ranks with a futile war. It's that simple.

On that subject, take a look at this. It's a lot better than the shifty WSJ editorial:

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20070527

Posted by at May 28, 2007 11:07 PM

Josh: I'm just in awe at the audacity of some to continue to bash the Military on Memorial day of all days.

Memorial Day is dedicated to individual soldiers who died in war, not to the military institution. Most soldiers know the difference, so perhaps you should learn it as well, especially on "this of all days."

These are probably the same people that say "I support the troops" yet they can't even chill out with their sniveling idiocy for 1-freakin'-day.

Whom are you addressing?

Posted by Brian Swiderski at May 28, 2007 11:10 PM

Cripes the comments here have been abducted by trolls.

Time to require registration Rand.

Just my two cents.

Posted by John at May 29, 2007 01:51 AM

Crittenden.

Now back to Truman losing to the Turks in the Crimean War.

Posted by D Anghelone at May 29, 2007 10:23 AM

> Memorial Day is dedicated to individual soldiers who died in war,
> not to the military institution. Most soldiers know the difference,

Clearly, most soldiers do not share your contempt for the military. If they did, they would not choose to join.

You do not you "honor the fallen" by trashing the causes they lived, fought, and died for.

Posted by Edward Wright at May 29, 2007 12:55 PM

you don't honor the living by sending them off to
wars that aren't vitally in the national interest of
clear and present danger and broadly supported
by the american people with clear victory conditions
and clear exit strategies.

Posted by at May 30, 2007 06:01 PM

Granada, Kosovo, Panama, Somalia....Oh yeah, those were vital to national interests.

How long exactly would you allow Saddam to continually ignore and trample resolutiond from your beloved UN? I believe the "U" is not for united, I think its for eunich.

Posted by Mac at May 31, 2007 05:41 AM

Granada, please ask reagan, i thought it was stupid.
Panama, ask bush, i thought it was stupid.
Somalia even stupider
kosovo, seemed unneeded.

Posted by anonymous at May 31, 2007 03:12 PM

Granada? Has America invaded Spain?

On the other hand, if they won't give you their paella recipes...

Posted by Fletcher Christian at June 2, 2007 05:21 AM

Post a comment