Once again I am lamenting that Frank Rich's New York Times column for February 4 is not available to everybody to read (if anyone has a link where it can be found, please put it in comments). His insights regarding what Cheney is really trying to cover up are right on and important for us as Americans to keep in mind given that administration now trying to hype their way into a war with Iran. People say oh no, they'd never do that because logic says they would not, but they didn't use logic before-- not any logic that has yet been revealed anyway.
Last week they put out information (or in their case, usually disinformation) how one particular attack by Iraqis had to have been engineered by Iranians given it was done so well. No proof of Iran's complicity but just had to be. Does any of that sound familiar on how we got into this mess? They are constantly telling us that Iraq is a training ground for terrorists and now when the fighters there get better at their attacks, it has to be someone else doing it?
For anybody who still believes the people in charge are honest, care about our troops and are the true patriots in this nation, here is one paragraph from Frank Rich's column-- a must read paragraph.
"A Pentagon inspector general’s report, uncovered by Business Week last week, was also kept on the q.t.: it shows that even as more American troops are being thrown into the grinder in Iraq, existing troops lack the guns and ammunition to “effectively complete their missions.” Army and Marine Corps commanders told The Washington Post that both armor and trucks were in such short supply that their best hope is that “five brigades of up-armored Humvees fall out of the sky.'"
This is where we came in. We had to attack Iraq with men and women not fully equipped because... uhmmmm what was that rush about again? This is not about games or politics. This is blood and sacrifice of American, and all too frequently innocent Iraqi lives. What is it going to take to stop those who didn't have the guts to fight, when their own turn had come, but today treat living men and women on the field as pawns in their games?
If we ever have to go to war, unless it's answering a direct attack on us as Pearl Harbor was, it should never be with ill-equipped troops and certainly not when you have a nation that is not even willing to pay a tax increase to cover such equipment. This is just crazy that the situation on equipment is still out there and yet the administration is calling for a surge (supported by toadies like Senator McCain). They cannot really be seeing the lives of men and women as mattering, and it's all about a political victory-- for themselves.
10 comments:
I certainly share your anxiety about the Administration's Iran language -- the similarity to what we heard preceding the Iraq invasion -- deja vu.
I, too, think it's an outrage our troups went to war and have continued to fight, be wounded, and die with inadquate fighting equipment for their maximum protection.
I will read this in the library on Tues. when I go into work. All of it--breaks my heart.
Rain-- Here's a link to Frank Rich's article:
Cheney.
Yes, Rich lays it out succinctly and persuasively.
I agree we need to do our best to give the troops the best we can, but this is not the first war where our troops have had less than the best available equipment. Remember during Vietnam guys were buying AR-15s on the black market because the first generation M-16s had problems. This problem goes back at least to the Civil War and probably the Revolution. The only difference is now we have instant reporting from the front to back home and we have tons of coverage about every aspect of the war, not just a newsreel at the theater once a week. Where was all this concern for the military during the Clinton years when all we heard about was spending the peace dividend and cutting the military budget?
Also why is it such a shock that we are getting tough with Iran? Remember the Axis of Evil speech a few years ago? Remember the "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists" speech? Five years ago everyone was all gungho to stand up for America and now the dems want to run and hide. As if that will make the radical Muslims go away. These people want us dead and they will keep attacking us until we stop them. Now if losing a ship or a plane or a building a couple of times a year is ok then I guess we should quit, but for me that is not an option I want to see played out because eventually it will not be a ship or a building or a plane it will be hundreds of thousands or millions of dead and that has to be stopped before it happens. The Radical Muslims attacked us at least 6 times during the Clinton years and not much was done about it so the attacks kept getting bigger and bigger. Until we had enough and really went after them.
thank you for the link, robin and I hope everyone will read it especially people who think as you do, Ingineer. I disagree with every single thing you said but have written my opinion on it over and over in this blog; so won't bother replying other than to say that democrats are not cowards and republicans are not brave. A lot of what Clinton did to try and get bin Laden was put down at the time by people exactly like you. I find it offensive that you would act as though we were forced into attacking Iraq, that it's okay to send off ill equipped troops (as stated by those who do go into combat not just wave flags) once again, but to go into it again and again here gains nothing. You, and those who think like you, will doubtless continue voting for men like Bush or McCain and think you are superior Americans and very heroic for the doing of it. Not much I can do here to change such thinking. I would suggest you read Robin's link but it won't change your mind because you made that up a long time ago and now only try to justify it. Like Bush, I don't think the 30% of the Americans who still support Bush's actions in Iraq, want to think about any of it with logic-- it's all emotions and attacks on the courage of those who disagree. Yes, that was a rant, but the thought that men and women are sent into combat when they are not well equipped makes me furious and at not just bush but those who continue to defend him
Its Monday we are both ranting. I know we were not forced into attacking Iraq, I mostly agree with you on what is now happening and what has happened in the past on Iraq, but I was talking about Iran. We can complain all we want about Iraq but we cannot change what has happened all we can do it try to make the best of the future. As for Iraq I think we need 100,000 more troops or pull back to border areas and let them have at each other.
What exactly are you saying about how the military should be equipped? Are you saying we should never send them out unless they have the best money can buy? If you want that then you better plan on spending the whole 2 trillion on just the military.
what I am saying is the military should decide what they need to fight and not politicians who are trying to defend a political position, not the troops out there facing what they are. Pearl Harbor was an example of no choice and the country rallied. It would again if it was no choice. When suits decide what is needed or don't care if the military is adequately equipped, let the suits go fight it. And if the country isn't behind it enough to equip the men and women to start, it should be questioned if it was wise
Did you read those pentagon links? This isn't about democrats finding fault. It's military analysis. Who should be better able to decide such a thing?
I read the links and I agree with you that the suits should not micromanage the military. I have stated it many times that W did not learn what his father learned from Vietnam. Which is why Bush 41 gave Schwartzkopf so much control in Gulf 1. We sent overwhelming fire power and troops in to accomplish the mission and they were very successful at that. This time he tried to do war-lite and it has failed.
Bush 41 understood what it is to be in combat. He had nothing to prove, and he understood an occupation is different than just winning a battle. Occupation is the problem we are facing now; and it is-- as was said by others-- heartbreaking the cost some are paying for this
Post a Comment