Iraq: Deployment

Well, George, you may find this difficult to comprehend, but soldiers are people too--people with families, in most cases. These folks didn't join the French Foreign Legion.
The battlefield is an incomprehensibly stressful environment. Human beings, not unlike tanks, aircraft and ships, get worn down. Sometimes they break. The longer, and more frequently, you deploy troops (and some are into their fourth tours now) the less effectively they perform, and the more their morale erodes. Eventually you risk turning your fighting force into what we had at the end of the Viet Nam war--the so called "Hollow Army".
Now it might make sense to create an army of automatons--cyborgs, maybe--but I suspect that even then they would require a little down time for recharging and repairs.
Get it now?

George:
Regular troops have always had bases and stations here in the US. This is not just because overseas duty is stressfull. It is a defensive requirement as well. Physical soldiers on our soil are required as one of the elements to defend the country in a military fashion . . .

There are also more duties here than you might otherwise think. My father's duty in South Dakota was as a 'Missile Minuteman" . . . the minuteman term comes from the Revolutionary War / Colonial era but essentially has the same meaning . . . there is training, recruitment, testing . . . all of the same things that happen at other bases overseas . . .

The business of military is war . . . and without one . . . it's preparation for war. This can be done anywhere and the placement of bases overseas (offensive forward positions - supply bases - training bases) or home (defensive positions - supply bases - training bases) makes no actual difference and base closures are done in response to political and military considerations. Be aware, also, that a military base is a significant boost to any local population's economy . . . providing jobs and money.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Ever served in a combat zone for any length of time? If you had then you would understand. I am very lucky in that I have alot of contact with Marine friends of my two sons when then return to the Dallas area. Talk to a few of those kids when they get back from Iraq, listen to what they say and I promise you it will become very clear.

As the person raising the child of a deployed soldier in Iraq, I can tell you that it is imperative that these soldiers have home time! My grandson has spent approximately 12 days with his Dad in 3 years since Dad is on his 3rd tour in Iraq.

You simply cannot imagine what these children go through. 12 year old kids are not supposed to be worrying about their parent nor or they supposed to be separated from them for that long. Yes it's their job, but does your job keep you away from your child that long?

Aside from the reasons for insisting that our troops have relief from the stress of being in a combat zone that were noted above, I think the idea has been seized upon as a means of forcing George to bring some of our troops home.

To be truthful about it, I suspect that either King George doesn't really care about the well being of our troops or he is following Dick's advice and fighting a war with the army that he has even if those troops have been stressed beyond their ability to survive the performance of their duties. That is a formula for losing any war.

Not going to go with the Viet Nam reference, Viet Nam was different in one very important element -- we had a national draft and we had draftees over there. If this was a case of mandating that draftees have home time, I would have no problem with it. If there is a need to defend our home soil, which I am sure there is in fact I am in favor of closing foreign bases and keeping the soldiers in our own country to defend our own land, then why are they in Iraq in the first place. Are you saying that we are sending soldiers over to Iraq when they are needed here at home? I don't see the relevance of that comment.

Sandy A. -- I don't agree with you that the soldiers stationed in Iraq are defending our freedoms and liberty. Though it is not their fault they are there, their very presence in Iraq is endangering America in a multitude of ways and will continue to do so until we get them out of there.

George,
Paul G and Doyle I think summed it up concisely. You may think that since their is no national draft in place, then the soldiers do not need ort deserve a break....but please don't forget that there is a back-door draft of sorts in place. Many are forced to stay in service long after their contract should have ended, and many are called to come back after returning to civillian life. So not everyone is there because they "signed up" .

Shouldn't all our soldiers our soldiers be here at home protecting us against attack? Why should our soldiers be all over the world? We should not be the worlds policeman the American working people cannot afford it. End of story. We need to cut our miltary budget by 90% spend it on healthcare and education. I am so sick of us bigheaded Americans fighting all over the world to secure corporate investment. We have over 725 foriegn miltary bases in over 35 different countries is that not over extended. The miltary budget for next year is 675 billion more than the rest of the world combined and over half our descretionary budget.

It's important to remember that many of these soldiers aren't just regular soldiers. Many are National guard who never had any expectation of spending years away from home (except under the direst need) who might be needed at home to help with disasters and defense at home.

George HW -

Are you aware of Posse Comitatus? You might want to read up on it.
Our military is not allowed to operate INSIDE the U.S., by law. The troops are only for foreign intervention........that's why they're all over the world, George.

It is amazing today that so many people don't even know what the military is, or what it is supposed to be used for.

We need to cut our military budget by 90%, George? That's just plain nuts!
And our budget is largely made up of Entitlement and Interest paid on Entitlements. Those 2 have been the largest part of every budget for 30 years. Go check it out :

http://www.cbo.gov/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

Penny, I believe I noted a possible exception for the National Guard troops. I also can understand to a lesser agree the other back door drafts such as Marines, etc. having their terms extended.

Bret, we do not need troops stationed all over the world to protect America and there is no problem stationing troops on American bases. We do not need bases scattered all over the planet as if we were a colonial power.

If you mean by entitlements, Social Security, that program is financed by a separate tax and its trust funds are actually loaned to the General fund to keep the government going. Eisenhower in his farewell address specifically warned against the situation which we now find ourselves regarding the defense budget. Our foreign military involvements are not actually to protect Americans, but rather American interests -- American Interests can basically be defined as corporate investments overseas -- let the corporations defend their own interests, or keep their investments in America. Why should be get involved militarily to try and promote stability in areas so that American jobs and investments can be exported to those areas?

I'm with you again George. Bret you better go check your brainwashing. I believe I said descretionary budget that is the budget that is decided on by the congress and the president each year and does not include entitlements that are paid out by legislated law. We spend as much as the rest of the world combined on miltary. We spend 9 times per citizen that England does on military and they are the closest to us in miltary spending of the English speaking world that is where I get cutting the military budget so hugely. I do not care about your posse law I care about common sense and the American working people who are suffering under the HUGE burden of the military spending and do not get HEALTHCARE unless they are corporately connected that leaves out most farmers and tradesmen.

We are also decreasing our ability to do discretionary spending because the Bush tax cuts and defense spending are vastly increasing the debt because of the deficits he is creating. When Reagan did that, it took Clinton 8 years to get us to a position where we had a surplus and Clinton did it mainly on the backs of the Middle Class -- then Bush gave it all away to the economic elite in the form of tax cuts. Now we are deep into deficit spending again for the same reasons we sank into the red under Reagan -- this time the surplus needs to be created on the backs of the wealthy and we need to push through increased support for education, border security, and lawful anti-terrorism that is designed to protect Americans here at home.

George HW -

You're quite funny.

I hear your emotion, but it lacks logic, reason, and rule of law.
"My posse law" as you put it....lol......refers to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. It was put into place after the Civil War because the military was being called out to settle every stupid border and land dispute in the country, prior to its passage..............not at all what the military was designed to do.

Our military is ONLY to be used in foreign interventions, and I'm sure that's why you Libs hate the military the way you do. It's an awesome force, the likes of which the world has never seen...........and when we call it out, it does horrible damage on its targets. Remember when we fully unleashed our military on Saddam's forces in Kuwait in 1991? I do. I was there. So I take it very seriously when our forces are called out against an enemy.

Read up a little on it, George HW. The true nature of our military doesn't seem to be reflected in your views.

George & George HW -

Discretionary Spending is only 28% of the budget these days. A President can only do so much with that.
Guess what the remaining 72% of the budget is comprised of? Yep, Entitlements and Interest paid on Entitlements.

Needless to say, we need to chip back the Entitlements portion of the General Fund, before we start worrying about how to spend revenue on new programs. With only 28% to work with, no President can solve much.

Check the facts :

http://www.cbo.gov/

and

http://www.gao.gov/

Bret,
I do like you obelisk there with the lightening. Very strong male symbols. Bret at this point in time I don't care what the military was designed to do. My ancestors in the Revolution were suspicious of any standing army. You talk like a true Anglo Saxon warrior guy "awesome force" "horrible damage" these are viking terms. Did you happen to see the King Arthur movie a couple of years ago. Where he is chased around by these "Saxon" viking like invaders who finally meet him and say "Finally a man worth killing" These are the roots of our culture. I focus on Jesus Christ and Buddha for great examples of men to follow. Until a larger part of our population, if ever, focus on the Peace of Christ, there will be no peace. The people of color of the world will not be kept in 2nd rate seats forever. Peace to you and all people that is my direction..

The American Military was intended for defensive purposes. The concept that it was only to be used overseas in pre-emptive warfare is nonsense. America has a traditional distrust of a large standing army because of its origin and having watched large standing armies become the government. Be that as it may, America has a longer tradition of non-intervention than it does of intervention. The idea that America's military's sole function is to invade and occupy foreign countries is utter nonsense.

George HW -

I'm a Conservative Democrat who's also ex-military. I know a lot about the Middle East, having been there many times. I'll be traveling there again in about a week or so. I speak Arabic, so I get to have discussions that not many Americans get to have with the locals.
What I see in America is appalling. Troops are being used by the Left in this country to make a political statement, when the Left couldn't care less about these fantastic men and women. I speak up on Gather whenever I see them being used as tools to deliver the wrong message.

I also see that there are evil people in the world, and someone has to stand up against them. Saddam Hussein and the Taliban are 2 great examples. Our President is taking a tough stand on a tough issue that nobody in the rest of the world wanted to touch with a 10 foot pole. I commend him for his courage, and I think his heart is in the right place on the Iraq war issue.
Now, obviously, this war was never about oil. If it was, Paul Bremer would never have given the Iraqi National Oil Company back to the Iraqi Interior Ministry in 2003. Its always about freeing the Iraqi people from brutality and giving them a chance for freedom. Talk to any returning serviceman or woman and they'll say something similar.

Bret, can't go with the concept of the war not being about oil. There is a split amongst the oil lobby about which is most advantageous to them regarding the control of oil nationalized vs. private. A strong argument was made in "The Armed Madhouse" for the concept that Baker's big oil faction prefers that the Iraqi oil reserve remain in the hands of the Iraqi nation as opposed to private companies -- it is easier for governments to get away with price fixing which actually benefits the oil companies. (No anti-trust suit can be brought against OPEC whose primary purpose is price fixing and manipulating oil supply.) The neo-conservatives, on the other hand, are not as enthused by nationalized oil reserves as the big oil faction is -- hence Bush's administration sometimes behaves with a certain amount of psycho-frenia as it has two factions somewhat at war with each other big oil vs. neo-conservatives. There are a lot of bad men in this world, that does not mean we should start engaging in pre-emptive wars that inevitably have immense collateral damage such as the war against Iraq. The fact that the occupation would turn ugly was sufficiently obvious that it should have been foreseen. I blame both the Democrats and Bush for the fiasco -- the Democrats for not having sufficient political backbone to have opposed the war resolution and Bush for distorting the intelligence, being opportunistic and misleading the majority of Americans into believing that Hussein had something to do with 9/11, and going in without an exit strategy. I believe that Madelaine Albright hit the nail on the head when she responded to Larry King that if you believe you are receiving direct revelation from God as to how to do something, you tend to not have a plan B. If there ever was the need for a plan B, it was for what we were going to do after the regime toppled. I do not believe that stubborn persistence in following a botched plan constitutes any form of courage, but rather is simply evidence of arrogance.

George McNaughton -

I remember at the start of the Presidential season of 2003-2004, the Left was claiming that Iraq was all about keeping cheap oil flowing to the U.S. so that Mr. Bush would win in a landslide. I noticed that as soon as oil prices started going up, the Lefties abandoned this idea..............probably because it would have made their crackpot theory of "blood for oil" seem stupid. Which of course it is.

So if this was WAS all about the Iraqi's oil, then why is production so low?
If this war was all about Iraqi oil, then why are prices so high now?

How do Lefties sleep at night when they push ideas like these that are so blatantly false?

i am with you on this one

Well Carol, I think that all you have to do to debunk this stupid "blood for oil" slogan is look at your local gas station reader board. If the prices are high, "blood for oil" makes no sense.

Now if prices were kept falsely low, I'd be happy, but suspicious. Only then would I actually start to believe some of this Conspiracy Theory nonsense.

Except, Bret, your logic is flawed. The individuals and powers that be benefit from (a) access to oil but (b) high prices. Our US companies haven't been able to strongarm the oil concessions they want (and Bush is backing by force) in Iraq yet (though it is one of their key milestones under the premise that allowing foreigners to come take their oil will do the entire population a service).

Your premise is only valid if we assume Bush and company were pushing for oil reserves for the benefit of all America - rather than for the just those who profit by oil. The oil companies have made record profits that we have paid for at the pump, paid for oversees with blood and tax money, etc.

And, even if Bush had intended to benefit all America by taking Iraqi oil, your logic still doesn't hold up. Just because he failed to get production up and in our hands doesn't mean he didn't intend to. Failure is getting to be his calling card.

Failure to do something that can be clearly induced from his actions does not absolve him of intent. Let's not confuse consummate failure with good intentions.

Here's a quote from Goring, a famous Nazi. I think where we are and where our president has taken us is too close to this for my tastes.

Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

* In an interview with Gilbert in Göring's jail cell during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials (18 April 1946),

Do we really want to prove the Nazi right? Aren't we tired of being manipulated by leaders who don't give a damn about us and what we want? I sure as heck am.

Stephanie -

Are you saying that Mr. Bush had good intentions, and independent of those good intentions, that oil prices rose all by themselves?

Although I agree that soldiers sign up to go to Iraq and do that work, I also think that it is impossible for an American teenager/young adult to have any idea what it is like to function in a war zone where, in less than comfortable environments, they are expected to function extremely stressful, even desperate situations with people around them suffering terribly. We are a fairly spoiled, soft society and 6 weeks of boot camp isn't going to change 18 years of cushy training. It may change you on the surface, but only the hard reality of war is going to change you inside and you don't get that until you are there.

I also think the point made by the grandmother is valid. The children of these soldiers need to see their parents if it's possible.