‘Silent patriots’ applaud victories
By Laura Armstrong
Columnist
In early 2002, the world watched news reports of American Special Forces fighting valiantly on horseback to oust the Taliban in Afghanistan. Barely a year later, we were glued to footage of Saddam's statue being pulled down in Baghdad's Firdos Square.
As euphoric Iraqis beat on the fractured stone with their shoes that day in April 2003, I admired Lt. Col. Bryan McCoy's Third Battalion, Fourth Marine Regiment, the young Devil Dogs who made history after a three-week, record-breaking, hard-fought push from Kuwait. As the moment was broadcast live, they stood fast among the Iraqi mob and the world marveled at their bravery.
I recall two Iraqi men with a banner reading, "Saddam is a wanker." It seemed positive at the time.
In July that year, Saddam's sons were radically deprived of their rape and torture rooms. By December, the Army's Fourth ID tracked their evil enabler to his sorry hole in the ground.
Despite ensuing turmoil (did we really expect a walk in the park?) purple ink in the creases of a finger never seemed so grand. Freedom, to those of us who value it, shined much brighter in the world.
But before we could finish the job, some Americans turned to tearing down anything resembling a victory. Rather than fully reporting the exceptional successes of the war, or even giving credit where credit was due, coverage became negative with a vengeance.
When things on the ground became positive again, or when a negative story was shown to be untrue, coverage stalled altogether.
To date, despite their successes, our brave troops have been described as victims (Obama), as murderers (Murtha), as Nazis (Durbin), or as too dumb to stay out of Iraq (Kerry).
Last week's AP wire (reported on the MDJ's front page) reminded us once again of the pervasive posttraumatic stress among vets. Two days later it was their propensity for suicide. But no Medal of Honor news, ever.
Also missing is news of the exoneration of six Marines so publicly charged (by John Murtha and in Time Magazine) with murder in a place called Haditha. After months in limbo, six of the eight accused have been completely cleared of all crimes, a likely disappointment for those who hoped for another My Lai.
Too bad pop-psychologist Joyce Brothers hadn't heard the news yet when she penned yesterday's syndicated column furthering the perception all troops are brainwashed to kill and have no minds of their own.
"Training and combat," she opines, "desensitize even the nicest young men … Blind obedience is a tragic part of war."
Military families everywhere give you the one-finger salute, Dr. Brothers.
But here's my point:
Many people, including me, still believe we've generally done the right thing in Iraq. We're glad Americans are killing terrorists there; the more the better. We think the troops are heroes, not damaged goods. And we value American victory, not appeasement, certainly not retreat.
We're just tired of talking about it.
You can call us silent patriots, warmongers or chickenhawks. Whatever. We don't much care. We're still here. Have a nice day.
lbarmstrong3378@comcast.net
(Way to go Laura, you speak for many of us! Semper Fi! VN8)
14 comments:
Former press secretary Scott McClellan gives us Bush's real motivation for war:
In Iraq, McClellan added, Bush saw "his opportunity to create a legacy of greatness," something McClellan said Bush has said he believes is only available to wartime presidents.
The president's real motivation for the war, he said, was to transform the Middle East to ensure an enduring peace in the region. But the White House effort to sell the war as necessary due to the stated threat posed by Saddam Hussein was needed because "Bush and his advisers knew that the American people would almost certainly not support a war launched primarily for the ambitions purpose of transforming the Middle East," McClellan wrote.
"Rather than open this Pandora's Box, the administration chose a different path — not employing out-and-out deception, but shading the truth," he wrote of the effort to convince the world that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, an effort he said used "innuendo and implication" and "intentional ignoring of intelligence to the contrary."
"President Bush managed the crisis in a way that almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option," McClellan concluded, noting, "The lack of candor underlying the campaign for war would severely undermine the president's entire second term in office."
Bush's national security advisers failed to "help him fully understand the tinderbox he was opening," McClellan recalled.
"I know the president pretty well. I believe that, if he had been given a crystal ball in which he could have foreseen the costs of war — more than 4,000 American troops killed, 30,000 injured and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead — he would never have made the decision to invade, despite what he might say or feel he has to say publicly today," McClellan wrote.
McClellan adds, “History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided: that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact. What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.”
I thought you might want to get an insider's perspective to go along with Ms. Laua's take on Iraq.
Yep Jim, that must have been it. His legacy! Get real! Does he seem like someone who gives a rat's behind about his legacy? He's gone against conventional wisdom, such as that is, at every turn and subjected himself to relentless media beatings. Concerned about his legacy? I submit that if that were the case, many more than Mr. McClellan would be making the case. Could it be that McClellan is concerned about his own legacy? Did you know, Jim, that McClellan's first draft was much more favorable than the published account? But that wouldn't sell. Hey, why don't you review Doug Feith's book for us?
Jim, Jim, Jim, sex and scandal sell, look how much we all salivate when it happens! I saw Bill O'Reilly interview him the other night and he was very polite to Scott, didn't back him into a corner and it was obvious, this is an opportunity to sell books. I just wonder what really happened that caused him to leave. I think he had a "proverbial" erection and wanted to get back at somebody.
But you keep drinking that Obama kool-aid, look forward to your government health care and your cheese (I don't think they do ice cream and I know you love it), public transportation and then when we truly do have a society of have's and have nots, don't come crying to me and ask where are the middle class?
IMO, you can't take away a people's incentive or desire to achieve! If the government provides everyone's needs, what incentive or desire do we as a people have to every accomplish anything?
Oh and ditto on all of that LEE! VN8
Doug Feith was one of the main neocon architects or salesmen of the Iraq War.
General Tommy Franks called Doug Feith "the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth."
Feith used his Pentagon office to produce alternative intelligence reports that linked Saddam to al-Qaeda and then passed them on to the White House. Some of it, like a report that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague, has been widely discredited. An investigation by the Pentagon’s inspector general called Feith’s activities “inappropriate.”
Feith helped create the “Parade of Horribles” Memo depicting all the horrible things that could go wrong during a war in Iraq. Literally all of them have come to fruition:
* the possibility that the U.S. could become so absorbed with its Iraq effort that it would pay inadequate attention to other serious problems;
* that war could cause more harm and entail greater costs than expected;
* that it would not go on for two to four years, but eight to 10 years;
* that terrorist networks could improve their recruiting and fundraising as a result of the U.S. being depicted as anti-Muslim;
* that Iraq could experience ethnic strife among Kurds, Sunnis and Shia;
* the war could damage America’s relationship with allies and its reputation in the world community.
VN8 the White House has not refuted the assertions of the book. They just all kept repeating the talking points "I'm puzzled" and "that doesn't sound like the Scott I knew."
As for refuting what Scott said in his book, I know I've had an opportunity in the past to refute falsehoods that were being spread about me and I chose to "ignore" the falsehoods. I don't find that particularly odd. "That doesn't sound like the Scott" they knew, well now, that speaks volumes to me! VN8
Gees....I came over here to see what was going on. You guys are intense! Shall I pass out the hammers?
Tommy Franks is certainly well respected. But typically, at this level, there is much of that sort of sentiment flying about. For instance, Wes Clark is regarded as stupid and self-serving in military circles. Clark Clifford called Reagan an amiable dunce. I don't put too much stock in these personal assessments based more on policy differences than anything else. I don't have the time to address your individual points but I will agree with VN8 that we're better off for the Iraq effort in that we've killed a significant number of these guys and there is nothing to indicate that our presence has contributed one iota to their recruiting efforts. As imperfect as it is, Iraq has held a couple of free elections - unthinkable not too long ago. Your point that Bush hasn't refuted McClellan's assertions is true, and his unwillingness to do so points to the absurdity of the belief that he was concerned with his legacy. It's true to form for him in that he doesn't react to media distractions.
Stick around Sue, we're just showing a little Monday Love! We are just getting started! LOL VN8
Lee, yeah that was exactly what I was getting ready to say. LOL VN8
Hey guys, I have got to shut this thing down, I need to run some errands and if I don't shut the lid on this thing, it's too tempting. Try not to throw any rocks or sticks while I'm gone! LOL VN8
Somebody pass Sue a hammer! LMAO
So...you guys actually like ticking each other off??
Sue, you asked Sue for a hammer, has your COMCAST gone out? LOL VN8
Post a Comment