Peaks and valleys

[aadler]

 
Another weekend, time to relax. Last night SSG V and I went to the Cuban Club with our interpreter; despite the name, the place is actually a sort of diner. Tomorrow we may grill fajitas on one of the beaches. It’s a brutal pace, but I’m holding up to it.

I’ve read all the stories I downloaded from remix_redux. Not all the stories posted there, just the ones I copied, some due to the names of the original authors, some in an attempt to pick out which remix my daughter did. (She confirmed that I’d made the right guess. Oh, yeah, I’m hot.) Even though my primary fandom of interest is the Buffyverse, it seemed to me that the Firefly stories were generally better done. I don’t have the spare time to sift through everything in remix_redux, so I’ll welcome recommendations. The fandoms that interest me are Buffy/Angel, Smallville, Veronica Mars, Firefly, Heroes, and Lost. I don’t read slash, I don’t read graphic sex, and I don’t read incest fic of any persuasion. Keeping those limitations in mind, anybody have any favorites they’d like to advise me about?

Rant commences:

Yes, I’m on easy duty right now, and loving every moment of it. I did my time in the desert, though, and I’ll be doing it again next year. By choice: I volunteered for Iraq, volunteered for Afghanistan, and I’ll probably have to sign a waiver allowing my redeployment to Iraq. I’m doing this because I believe in it, and there’s nothing special about that because the same is true of almost everyone who wears the uniform.

That being so, the developing political situation continues to anger me. The American public are tired of the Iraq war? the American public aren’t fighting the Iraq war! The Army and the Marines are doing that, and our biggest discouragement stems not from dangers in the field, but from the pusillanimous speech of people determined to cut our legs out from under us while insisting it’s for our sake.

Lest that be considered too vague, I’ll clarify: George Tenet is a lying asshole. Harry Reid is a quasi-treasonous asshole. And Nancy Pelosi is just an idiot.

The Democratic leadership are declaring defeat — and doing their damnedest to make it certain — because they need defeat in Iraq; victory would strengthen the Republicans, a horror not to be countenanced. Those would be the hard-core policital whores, but the true believers are no better; if they’re too stupid to recognize that quitting whenever things get tough will not only be seen as weakeness, but will actually constitute weakness, then they’re too stupid to serve in elected office.

In five years we’ve lost fewer Americans than a score of murderous fanatics managed to kill in one day with four hijacked planes. Yet the talking heads act as if every day in Iraq were another Shiloh or Guadalcanal.

We’re not losing. We’re being betrayed. For our own good, of course.

Let us fight, you bastards! Let us finish the job we volunteered to do! No enemy on this earth can beat us. It takes the Democratic Party to do that.

Rant concludes.

No, I’m not at all bitter.

Let the weekend begin.

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/opalescence_/]

Amen, brother! It's utterly disgusting and my heart breaks for the men and women serving this country, having to hear this! You're right, the Left can't AFFORD for us to succeed in Iraq! If we did, they could never hope to regain their POWER, which is all they are concerned with!

If the Iraqi war had been supported by the world and by this country from the beginning, IT WOULD BE WON AND OVER.

[aadler]

Yes and no. As long as we have a determined leader — and we do — we don’t need anybody to support the war; we just need for them to not actively interfere. It’s the interference, and the defeatism and cynicism underlying it, that incite my ire and contempt.

Standard disclaimer: icon refers to idiot politicians, not you.

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

The Democratic leadership are declaring defeat — and doing their damnedest to make it certain — because they need defeat in Iraq; victory would strengthen the Republicans, a horror not to be countenanced.

Truer words were never spoken. And it's disgusting and infuriating that these people WANT us to lose so they can benefit politically. It's vomit-inducing.

It's funny, I got linked via Garfield Ridge to some old Dr. Seuss political cartoons (who knew?) from WWII that are pithy and to the point and so right on that they hurt. Substitute "Al Queda" for "Hitler," and he could be speaking to us today.

And good old Joe Leiberman. I respect that man more and more all the time.

[aadler]

I had already read Lieberman’s speech. So far as I can see, I’m in total agreement with every word he said. I just wish there were more like him. Heck, I wish there were more Republicans like him.

[lakrids404.livejournal.com]

First a BtVS rec. Fix
Summary: Dawn held the universe in the palm of her hand, and she was going to shape it to her liking.

I am a Dane who is politically centre left, which is probably rather on far the left when the converted to USA politics, and I did support the war. The two main reasons was that Sadam was a brutal dictator, who had committed genocide on his own people, and a wish to support an old ally, who had supported us through the cold war and was part of the alliance who freed us from the Nazis.
Denmark has a small contingent of about of 500 men, under British command. But they are getting pulled out with the British, and afterwards relocated to the Danish company in south Afghanistan. A decision I support for several reasons. Mostly because will I don’t think that USA is losing the war, it does not seem that USA is winning it either. And no I don’t think that the army of USA the world last superpower, could lose this war if it got support it need from its government, but I get less and less sure if could ever win it, without using methods that would be extremely hard over for a civilian population.
About the political support, as I have understood it from medias, it was the white house who from the start, did not give military the number the number of troops, that the generals thought was necessary to control the country from the start.

[aadler]

To begin with, yes, I read “Fix” at remix_redux. In fact, spiralleds asked me if I was the one who had produced it. (Nope, not me.)

Insofar as the political matters, you made two points that are worth addressing. I don’t agree with your conclusions on either one, but they’re definitely pertinent to the overall issue.

First, the “war” in Iraq was won within weeks. It’s the aftermath that keeps dragging on, as those always do. War is messy, and the recovery from war can be even messier. Nevertheless, it isn’t the Iraqi population fighting the U.S. occupiers, but a small core of malcontents — many of whom are, or are funded and sponsored by, foreign agitators from Al Qaeda and Iran — killing Iraqis in massive numbers because they’re easier targets. Most of the violence in Iraq isn’t aimed at American soldiers, it’s aimed at producing chaos and civil war in Iraq, and at convincing the world media that Iraq is a hopeless cause.

Which it isn’t. The Iraqi government continues to make gains. The insurgents continue to lose ground. They ramp up the civilian body count, they start using primitive chemical weapons, because they’re losing and they’re desperate. They never had a chance to defeat us militarily, and they knew it from the beginning; it was always a matter of making things so bloody that we’d retreat out of distaste and discouragement. And even that was only Phase One; the ultimate goal was to keep Iraq so destabilized that, after the anticipated American pull-out, it could be turned into the next major staging ground for continuing jihad. If the Americans leave, but Iraq remains stable and democratic, the jihadists lose, and that’s the result they’re facing right now.

Second, the political support. You’re correct, there was a major misjudgment from the beginning as to how many troops would be needed, not for victory — we managed that handily — but for an effective occupation and reconstruction. That’s the whole point of the much-vaunted “surge” of American forces, primarily into Baghdad but ultimately into any and all contested areas: do now what we should have done then, apply the necessary resources to finish the job.

And it’s working. And the Democrats can’t afford for it to work, so they’re declaring it a failure even though 1) it’s only had a few months to show any effect at all, and 2) there’s compelling evidence that it’s accomplishing what it was intended to do.

Let’s be clear here: they loudly and endlessly condemned President Bush for not sending enough troops in the first place, and now they’re refusing to provide funding for the troop increase they blamed him for not implementing before.

They’re investing all their hopes in an American defeat, because they believe defeat would be good for them. Not for the country; for the Democratic Party. When they were a minority, they were only naysayers; now, as a majority party, they’re trying to manufacture that defeat. And I damn them for it.

[lakrids404.livejournal.com]

If you are right, that the Democrats wants a troop pullout for strictly to gain power, they should indeed be dammed. But I find it hard to believe / understand, that one could be so selfish, with one own country future as well as with Iraks.

[aadler]

To people of such a mind-set, the future of Iraq doesn’t count (not as much as getting America out of it), and the future of America is best guaranteed by having the high-minded, true-hearted, endlessly wise Democrats in charge.

I don’t despise Democrats because I’m Republican (I think the Republicans aren’t conservative enough); I despise Democrats because they lie, because they’re stupid and weak and selfish. Nobody is perfect, everyone falls short, but you should at least fall short while pointed in the right direction. They’re dragging the country down with their self-serving folly. And it’s my country, too.

[tessarin.livejournal.com]

I think part of the problem is the MTV attention span and the inability to judge things in their historical context.

Whilst any casulties and deaths are to be regretted in terms of other conflicts they are very low. As you say the war was won in a few weeks. What is currently being fought is the pacification campaign. People seem to not know their history and that these can take years.

You should draw some solace from the fact that at least US troops are not subject to the endless drip drip of defeatist propoganda issuing forth from the BBC and the metropolitan liberal intelligenstia in the UK. Whilst at the same time having their funding cut by the very men who sent them to war. In the process starting the process of underming the last institution in which the British people had pride.

One of the main problems in the west is that the elites appear to have become divorced from those that they govern despite democracy. By blurring issues and extending the boundaries of government and parroting the same agenda they elimate choice. Plus their tendency to introduce stuff in direct opposition to the wishes of the electorate. But the electorates are also to blame they have become dulled on the opiate of our own success.

[xxmagex.livejournal.com]

"I think part of the problem is the MTV attention span and the inability to judge things in their historical context."

Amen to that. A counter-insurgency is not a very media friendly war. There are no clear dramatic events you can point to say that you're winning the war. A pitched firefight and car bombing is more media friendly than opening a school or putting water infrastructure in place.

[aadler]

There’s more to it than that, though. The point you make has already been made repeatedly, but still the media keep concentrating on the bad news. Almost as if they had their own agenda. But no, they wouldn’t slant the news, would they? just to advance their own political preferences? That would be — gasp — dishonest.

[xxmagex.livejournal.com]

You give them too much credit. I think of it more as lazy group think from within the hotels in the Green Zone. No need to find out the truth since everyone knows what the story line is.

[aadler]

We have our own defeatist propaganda, though I’ll accept your assessment that it’s worse where you are. Nor is it — here — strictly a problem of the ‘ruling class’, unless by that you mean the self-styled visionaries of the liberal left. They got voted out of power because of their arrogance and incompetence, then returned due to widespread dissatisfaction regarding the handling of events in Iraq. They’ve taken that as a mandate to do things their way, rather than simply to bring about change. The change has been made — in response to the expression of public will — and that change is exactly what the Democratic leadership here is trying to squash before it can have a chance to succeed.

[lmzjewel.livejournal.com]

I didn't agree with going into Iraq because in my mind Al quaeda was responsible for what happened on September 11th not Sadam Hussein. Grant it, Sadam Hussein was a sadistic and brutal Dictator who should have been taken out the first time. Still, I didn't feel like there was enough evidence to link him with the attacks on September 11th and going to war with another country is an awful price to pay both for us and for the citizens of Iraq on the evidence they were trying to sell. The way I see it Al Quaeda is the real enemy. I feel Sadam Hussein and Iraq was a distraction for us.

Personally, I thought we did right going after Afghanistan and we should have went after Pakistan. Pakistan is the breeding ground of Al Quaeda. The reason were having so much trouble in Afghanistan now is because they can run across that border and get to those mountain villages. Those training camps in Pakistan are still there and they need to be taken out along with Dr. Quan who is seen in Pakistan as a hero. Lets make no mistake he's the reason Pakistan has nukes and probably the reason why Iran will get them. I also wonder about the Sudan. Al Quaeda had and probably still has training camps there. I wouldn't be surprised if some members of the Janjaweed who are raping and killing and causing genocide in Darfur aren't Al Quaeda or at least trained with them. I would love to see the Muslim Sudanese Government down on it's knees and meet with an extremely bad end, if you know what I mean. Reason being they turned the janjaweed lose on those people. And it's a known fact, Al Quaeda had training camps there. So to me, there were alot better targets to hit than Iraq.

With that said were there now and so is Al Quaeda and we need to win. Which means give you guys whatever you need to get the job done. Also, As you said, Al Quaeda is losing footing there and thats why their so desperate. I've been reading that some of the Sunni insurgents and Chieftans that they were working with are starting to get sick and tired of them and their brutal tactics, and their weird (even by Islamic standards) religious beliefs. They are also beginning to see them as a threat to their reign and positions in their own regions as well. Some of them are starting to ask for help in kicking Al Quaeda out and I think we should give it to them. It may also be a good way to help stabalize the country. Especially if we can get Sunni and Shia and the Kurds working together for that goal. And their reward is that when Al Quaeda is gone we leave too and they can have their country back. And they will have done something as a country instead of as tribes, which I think is a good foundation for rebuilding their country. So I do think that we have a good opportunity right now to really turn the tides and stick it to Al Quaeda. And again, I just want to say Thank You, to you and all the servicemen who work and fight so hard to keep us here at home safe.

LMZ

[aadler]

I personally believe we had sufficient reason to go into Iraq, but I agree with your essential point: we’re there now, and that’s where Al Qaeda are focusing their main effort. There’s only one reason for them to keep going in the face of the casualties they’re taking, and that’s the hope of victory. If we deny them that victory — and they can’t beat us unless we simply pull out with the job left unfinished — their losses will be all to our good. These were the people who not only perpetrated 9/11, but rejoiced in it as a mighty victory for Allah; as far as I’m concerned, killing them wherever they gather is a worthy goal in itself.

How I feel about the Political Parties

[lmzjewel.livejournal.com]

For the most part I'm pretty sick and disgusted with both the democrats and the republicans. I feel like they polarize Americans down political party lines to much and that's not good. Also, they seem to give up good common sense for what ever their party's agenda views are at a given time whether the electorate personally believes in it or not, and that just bugs me. I don't like any of the other political parties in this country either.

I have read enough history to know that the Founding Fathers and the early states they were representing didn't agree with each other on alot of issues either. But, they sat down worked together and hammered out stuff that at times they may not have felt was brilliant but it worked and got it done. They also did some amazingly brilliant things like The Constitution and the Bill of Rights. My point being is I'm sure they didn't all agree wholeheartedly with what they decided but they decided it together and they decided it for the good of a newly born country and for the good of the people living in it. Seriously, I would kill to have leaders like that today. Leaders that could get over the whole democrats vs. republicans cat fights and their own petty egos and work for things that are good for the country and the folks living in and fighting for the country and not their particular political parties agendas.

LMZ

Re: How I feel about the Political Parties

[aadler]

I’m not crazy about either party myself these days, but the choice still seems clear: one of them isn’t really good enough, the other is disastrously wrong about damn near everything. And where the leadership is concerned, there isn’t a single one of the Democratic candidates I’d trust with the Presidency.

[texanfan.livejournal.com]

I'm appalled with the politicians on both sides of the aisle. I'm not as politically savvy as I should be, but it seems there is far too much manuevering for political gain, by both sides, rather than what is good for the country. To the power brokers in Washington it seems more important who gets credit than to make sure the right thing is being done.

It also seems to me that it would be the height of foolishness, as well as ethically questionable, to leave a destablized Iraq behind us. Problem is, we're talking an extremely long and hard road to achieve that goal and history shows us that the American people have never been overeager for the long, hard road. Sad but true.

For my own part, I support you for as long as it takes and thank you for your service.

[aadler]

The point has been made more than once, and publicly, that the ‘war against terror’ (actually a war against anybody who uses terrorism to attack us, which right now is pretty much limited to violent fundamentalist Islamists) will be slow going, requiring probably at least a generation of sustained effort. The alternative is to let them attack us at will, erode our power while advancing theirs, and ultimately conquer us.

Given those choices, it would seem to be a no-brainer … but then, there seems to be no shortage of no-brain people who disagree. One-quarter of a generation into a conflict that was identified in advance as a long, hard road, they’re wanting to quit and pull out because … because … because it’s long, and hard, and America’s soldiers (who volunteered to fight, and keep volunteering to go back) are dying (in a cause they believe to be worth dying for).

Look at history. Any time a nation gets so tired of war that it refuses to consider it at all, it’s about to get hit with a bigger war than ever, because the enemy it’s trying to appease and placate just gets stronger in the absence of determined opposition.

[texanfan.livejournal.com]

Quite so.

[xxmagex.livejournal.com]

The book "The Savage wars of peace" by Max Boot has a chapter on the Vietnam conflict. He says what the popular history of Vietnam has overlooked. We actually defeated the insurgency by the Viet Cong in the early 1970s. Remember the collapse of South Vietnam in 1975 was caused by US Congress completely cutting off military aid to South Vietnam and the North Vietnamese launching a conventional blitzkrieg campaign afterwards.

I am really worried we're going to see something like that in Iraq where just as we get a handle on the insurgency, the US political will collapses. Please don't let this be a replay of the 1970s.

[aadler]

The cynical abandonment of South Vietnam? that (and the bringing down of a President) are what the radical left in America look back to as their glory days, and yearn to repeat.

I’m glad to see that at least one other person in the world is willing to recognize that the ‘peace’ movement — however they prefer to remember themselves — was actually nothing more than complicity in North Vietnamese conquest.