This is a growing and troublesome trend.
Washington Times - Pentagon officials say they are increasingly worried that Washington's political fight over the Iraq war will dampen what has been high morale among troops fighting a tenacious and deadly enemy.
Commanders are telling Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that ground troops do not understand the generally negative press that their missions receive, despite what they consider significant achievements in rebuilding Iraq and instilling democracy.
The commanders also worry about the public's declining support for the mission and what may be a growing movement inside the Democratic Party to advocate troop withdrawal from Iraq.
"They say morale is very high," said a senior Pentagon official of reports filed by commanders with Washington. "But they relate comments from troops asking, 'What the heck is going on back here' and why America isn't seeing the progress they are making or appreciating the mission the way those on the ground there do. My take is that they are wondering if America is still behind them."
Mr. Rumsfeld appeared on several Sunday talk shows yesterday to express concern about the effects of the political discussion on U.S. forces.
"We also have to understand that our words have effects," he said on "Fox News Sunday." "Put yourself in the shoes of a soldier who thinks that we're going to pull out precipitously or immediately, as some people have proposed. Obviously, they have to wonder whether what they're doing makes sense if that's the idea, if that's the debate."
Leftists will be quick to write this off as spin by a Bush administration loyalist, but when we hear the same sort of thing directly out of the mouth of soldier after soldier one cannot help but conclude that it is the truth.
Now give a thought to what a sad situation that is. Because we can win this war, yet listening to the media and leftist Democrats bent on political revenge you'd think we were on the edge of defeat. All the want to talk about is the latest car bombing and how soon we can bring the troops home.
For this entire war the morale of our troops has been high. They feel they're making progress and they overwhelmingly support their mission. Heck, the vast majority of the troops voted for President Bush in 2004. Yet now these stalwarts, who have done more than any other American to fight terrorism and liberate Iraq, must look homeward and see declining support for their mission not so much because the war is going badly or because we can't win but because the leftist media/political establishment wants to defeat the Republicans.
After Friday's vote America's politicians should be united for victory in Iraq. Almost to a man, Republicans and Democrats in the House rejected the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Which means that they all accept the idea that victory in Iraq is possible, because if it were impossible they should have voted to bring the troops home right away.
So if we can win, we should focus our efforts on that, not talking about car bombings and how soon we can bring the troops home.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 13
An just what is your definitiion of "winning the war?" Is it destroying a culture to justify the fraud on the world when there was no weapons of mass destruction, attempt to buy weapons grade uranium from Niger by Saddam or any connection to outside terrorists.
Cheney makes the case that if we leave we allow, bad men Osama and Zarqawi in charge in Iraq. This is an interesting comment as neither terrorist was in charge of Iraq before we invaded the country. So is it our mission to now kick out the terrorist we spawned by invading the Middle East? Tell me and the majority of Americans, when do we win this bogus war?
How many ghosts does our military have to chase and how many more maimed and dead are enough to satisfy you and others so hungry to send our children to their early graves?
1. Our soldiers are not "children." They are adult men and women who exemplify a high level of maturity, courage and dedication to freedom. Calling them children is an insult.
2. The Bush administration is on the same page with the Iraqi government, who just called for American forces to stay in Iraq until that country is capable of defending itself. They don't want us there forever, we don't want to be there forever. They want us there now, we want to be there now. Early withdrawal is only being talked about by partisan Democrats to score cheap, political points.
3. My definition of "winning the war" is a stable Iraq capable of defending itself from the terrorists. Leaving Iraq before that is achieved would be a waste of all that we have done to this point.
We are doing great things in Iraq, Sam. This anger and resentment of your own country is going to end up putting you on the wrong side of history.
Exactly what the President has been telling us.
Allan
Rob, I've read some of your other articles. You're a bright, educated guy it seems. I respect your thinking and willingness to put it out there (notice I didn't say I agree with it all). I do find it unattractive to pick on Samuel's use of the word "children". Guess what? I have four children . . . ages 38 to 16. They will always be my "children". It's beyond me to think of them as my "adults". I know they are adults and they are still my children and I honor them that way. I don't believe for a moment that I "insult" them by choosing to call them children. I don't know Samuel but I'll bet he has a very large, caring heart and thinks deeply about the service people we have scattered around the globe.
One other issue I have with your analysis. You tend to speak as if the Iraq government is the one and only voice for the people. I doubt that this is true. Certainly no more true than it is to assume that any US Administration speaks for all us. I guess that's what our brand of democracy is all about. The current Administration doesn't speak my truth very often. I take pride in voicing my desent.
Rob . . . If I'm to believe much of what you've written here (the phrase that sticks with me most is . . . "No withdrawal until victory has been had"). Then answer me this . . . why not use all of our military might and just bomb them off the face of the earth?
I appreciate your comments Gil, but due to time restraints I'm just going to answer that last question:
Because how do you target an enemy who doesn't wear a uniform and hides behind women and children?
As for everything else, you're not saying anything I haven't heard before. I think you're wrong, but we can agree to disgree.
Alan, I read your comment as far as that part about Cheney writing everything for the Iraqi government. I stopped there. Clearly, you aren't worth responding to.
If you want to see even more back-and-forth you should check out my normal digs at SayAnythingBlog.com Lot's of spirited back-and-forth there. The positives are mostly conservative, but I think there are more liberal commentors then conservative commentors, so it evens out.
"-you can sit there all night but your not getting up from the table until you eat your crow"
No, these troops didn't just liberate millions of Iraqi's from one of the most brutal dictators in history. These troops didn't just haul ass out of the country like the coalition did after the Persian Gulf war, leaving Saddam free to attack the Shia. They are staying to protect those who want and need protection from those who would rule violently. They are staying until the Iraqi government can be elected, and can protect its people. What more noble mission is there than to risk, or give, your life to protect those who cannot protect themselves?
Lying about Bush, revising the history of the runnup to the war are the two favorite devices employed today. Following close behind is the not-so-veiled racist attitude that "Arabs are so backward/stupid/inbred/violent that they could never form a democracy." Jeesh, you'd think these liberals were talking about people in red states.
Oh, I forgot, it's all about oil and multinational corporations. I'm surprised I haven't heard abortion and the environment injected into the Iraq war argument....
Liberals should just keep whining, lying, complaining and moaning about how Bush will fail, about how the troops will fail, how the strategy is flawed, civil war is inevitable, bladdy, bladdy, blah.
It must feel horrible to bet against your own country for political reasons. Fortunately, democrats are likely to lose the bet. My hope and expectation is that the Iraqi's will prove capable of both governing and protecting their country and we will be asked to leave, when they are ready. This is what I consider winning. It will be a win for America, a win for Iraqi's, a loss for terrorists, a loss for malevolent despots in the region, and a loss for those democrats that were the most shrill and unreasonable.
The conspiracy filled hate-mongers who would rather see us fail in Iraq than see Bush succeed will suffer most. If the past is any guide, they'll be blindsided. My guess is that they will be tossed when they refuse to accept success and continue to carp and moan, perhaps that, even though we did it, we had no right to "force" democracy on Iraq....