Is all this political debate against the build up of troops in Iraq good for the morale of the troops that are there? Is it sending the wrong signals to al Qaeda and other enemies the United States is fighting?
In a statement made yesterday, General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated that congressional statements against the war buildup in Iraq do not endanger troop morale. "From the standpoint of the troops, I believe that they understand how our legislature works and that they understand that there's going to be this kind of debate" Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates further stated that the troops are "sophisticated enough to understand" that the debate is about a way to move forward in Iraq.
Contrast that with statements made by the new commander in Iraq, the White House and other top Republicans.
Utah Senator Orrin G. Hatch stated yesterday on the senate floor that "Our political will is directly related to the morale of our troops. Those who seek to, for rhetorical purposes only, assert their support of the troops while communicating their opposition to their mission cannot sever this natural connection between political will and morale."
Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, stated last month "Think about what message resolutions would send. It is a question that those who are talking about these resolutions will have to answer to themselves and to the public."
When Senator McCain raised the question about resolutions and morale during the Senate hearings with General Petraeus, the new commander of U.S. forces in Iraq stated that "It would not be a beneficial effect."
Claiming authority as the commander and chief, the President is proceeding with the buildup. There is little that the opposition can do except rescind the authorization to go to war, cut off funding for troops, or pass a nonbinding resolution that has no effect but lets members vent their feelings on the way the war is going.
So I ask the Gather community:
- Are we sending the wrong message to the terrorists?
- Do you think that this heated debate by our elected officials is hurting troop moral?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 35
Our soldiers enlisted and chose to fight this war. All the rhetoric over here should not have an affect on the mission they set out to do.
Bring our kids home and punish the civilian leadership that has brought us to this point.
Yes
For those people that think that war and our military are so bad, why don't you tell Congress to act of their Constitutional Authority and disband the Army and Air Force?
–noun
1. flattering or wheedling talk; cajolery.
2. deceptive or misleading talk; nonsense; hooey: a lot of blarney about why he was broke.
–verb (used with object), verb (used without object)
3. to flatter or wheedle; use blarney: He blarneys his boss with the most shameless compliments.
Blar·ney (blär'nē)
A village of southern Ireland near Cork. Blarney Castle (dating from the 15th century) is the site of the Blarney Stone, said to impart powers of eloquence and persuasion.
Barney (bär'nē)
Nick name
Alter Ego, a very cute and witty fuchsia ferret
====
These Resolutions that the Dems are blocking are just to go on record about how they "feel." I say show some brass orbs and go all the way. Tell them to dismantle the Army. Our troops will have to come home then and they won't be shot at any more.
http://www.vnis.com/story.cfm?textnewsid=2033
But I can assure you that they would love to come home tomorrow if they could. If they have to stay, they would like more support in the form of soldiers and other resources.
I did find a good article by Avi Klien, in the Washington Monthly, that argues that morale is actually increasing. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0605.klein.html
It shouldn't lower troop morale..If anything it would remind them that we are ultimate concerned for their welfare much more so than being at war.
I wouldn't doubt that a lot of the people serving in Iraq believe in what they're doing. That's a different thing altogether.
It seems that too many people are unaware we are at war. I can understand that. Bush, Congress and the newspapers have done a very poor job in educating the public out of the messed up concept that we couldn't handle it. Well, they were wrong. Big mistake! Bush should be out there giving estimates every week, or at least let us know what happened. Even it happened 6 months ago! Yes, that's way it used to be done so as to protect those who may still be in harms way.
I wish could explain to you that we did not start this war. Some people don't care, because they have a political stake in this. SHAME ON YOU! Please understand my frustration. I love America, and THEY have declared war on us. By us walking away from it won't stop it. No matter how many ways you try to convince yourself it will.
Remember Afghanistan? Remember how it fell in to the hands of the Taliban? We walked away. Remember Iraq? Remember how we should have finished the job? The UN wouldn't allow it. You can blame President Bush 41 for it, but he was only doing what your precious oil-for-money-thieving UN told him to do. So. Here we are. Deal with it!
One of my friends has already been spat on. This time, my Soldier baby spat back! Yeah!
where's the declaration?
'Bush, Congress and the newspapers have done a very poor job in educating the public out of the messed up concept that we couldn't handle it."
where is the proof our strategies to date have been able to "handle it"?
"I love America, and THEY have declared war on us. "
Who is they?
Keep going down on your propaganda and just hope that your Soldier baby doesn't come home maimed or have some mysterious illness due to being exposed to depleted uranium..That same affliction that many veterans are suffering from and recieving no treatement, because th military will not admit they have poisoned our own troops.
Your entire post assumes that entering the war was based on the assumption that it was a conflict against terrorism. Look again and you will see that Bush and his now defunct coalition entered the war based on the idea that Saddam had WMD and was about to use them on the West. Contrary to your erroneous view, it was NOT about terrorism.
If you had read the newspapers you would have known that there was no terrorism in Iraq at the time of Bush's illegal invasion. Terrorism there became a problem AFTER his invasion.
The better way to ''defeat'' terrorists is by not creating them in the first place. And it was Bush who created them. Blame him, not the other nations.
The declaration for the Iraqi war was signed Oct. 2002 and was endorsed by UN resolution 1551. Thank you very much. There were about 17 (?) different reasons given, WMD being one of them.
You do have a point, however, that he should not have made it sound like this was the only premise for going to war against Saddam. If I must, I can tell the other reasons, but is it truly necessary? We are already there...
As to 'who' is at war with us, I recommend a site to you: What Extremists are Saying. You should at least give it a glance. Have a nice day.
Actually, that was an endorsement of a continuation of international oversight in Yugoslavia.
Rosemary, I think you are being duped and loving it.
What are we doing there? The President needs to be able to articulate this and get public support or we need to change course. Personally I feel that the war has been botched by Bush and Cheney's incompetance, but the Democrats seem to offer nothing but appeasement both of the militant muslims, and the ignorant isolationist American masses who think this is all about anti-semitism.
And shouldn't we show them how the democracy we are told they long for is practiced? Or is it?
* hysterical wave
* anti-Muslim
* anti-Arab
* anti-Palestinian
* madrassa-trained, suicidal plane-nappers
* and the rest of the pretended invaders
* paddle over here to attack us
to make the arguments that most of the country believes/believed
at one time seem ridiculous, ie. subject to ridicule. What is ridiculous
is you and your method of logic.
First you say our enemies do not have the means to know what
is going on in America, and then you say we should show them
how Democracy is practiced.
The problem is not that they are trying to implement democracy
and cannot find out how, the problem is that they have either
thug-led dictatorships or totalitarian religious regimes that do
not want to give up power.
Post WWII both Germany and Japan at least had understanding
of how government works and what it is supposed to do. Iraq
and most of the Middle East is filled with would-be-thug strongmen
whose genes are imprinted with jump up and grab a gun if you
see a chance to rule and be a big shot. The other side is the
Mosque where they are safe but it is a totalitarian institution in
the Middle East, surveiling people, and threatening them if they
step out of line in the slightest way.
Their governments do not know how to get along with the rest
of the world and the Muslims from this area have become
potential terrorists in the lands where they seek to re-setttle.
I think under-estimating the enemy and trying to make a joke
of this is plain stupid, and turning Bush's mistakes or
incompetance into a reason to ignore the whole thing
totally irresponsible and likely to lead to more violence,
death and debt than we have now.
White House if so full of themselves, they have behaved
unilaterally from the start, smug, arrogant, they have fired
and overrridden the experts, the military generals in favor of
their own failed tactics and forbid anyone to say - I told you
so as being unpatriotic. Who says patriotism has anything to
do with agreeing 100% with George W. Bush?
But what the failure is - is Bush. That does not automatically
erase the threat from Islamic Totalitarianism threatening to
pull in all Muslims, and foment a new world war. It also does
not make what the Neocons wrote wrong. This is not some
emotional association argument, this is tactics of survival in
world history.