If there was a signifigant Iraqi faction screaming for democracy, saying free us from this religous feudalism and tyranny, I’d have a different view. In that case I’d say carry on and maybe even sign up myself because I do feel its something worth fighting and dying for. But that isn’t the case. They don’t have any strong desire for democracy, especially not our brand of it. They never did. Its the gift no one asked for, and all they want to do is take it to the store and trade it for one they really want as soon as our back is turned.

Asking our soldiers to fight and die for such a cause is asking them to sacrifice for nothing, which is what they are doing. It breaks my heart.

Exactly in the same place as anyone else expressing an opinion.- including that of soldiers.

Having personal experience is a double-edged sword. It gives one insights that an outsider can’t have, but at the same time, it creates an emotional investment which can cloud judgment.
That, BTW, is why the military has civilian leadership. It’s rather disturbing to see the lines blurred when Pertraeus gives political assessments, as he too has an emotional investment in the surge.

I hope soldiers are given a chance to express their feelings, whatever those feelings are.
But their emotions can not be the basis for sound judgment re this war, or any war.

Should we take an opinion poll among soldiers to set national palicy? This is just crazy, IMO,

If the soldiers’-actually-doing-the-fighting opinions should have no bearing, where does that place the value of opinion from people typing on a keyboard at 9:10am?

These divisions amongst the troops, both serving and those who’ve served, are bound to occur when the reasons given for the war they have been asked to fight were bogus from the start.

Every six months the mission seems to change, but nothing else.

Soldiers are the tools, not the cause of war, and so should it ever remain.

While the private feelings of soldiers should be respected, we must remember that no country can or should either wage war or halt war to make the soldiers feel good.

Should we take an opinion poll among soldiers to set national palicy? This is just crazy, IMO,

I have no idea what your first question is trying to say.

I would hazard to guess that Mr. Langley does not sense any contradiction in his statement and that the only contradiction lies within yourself.

Did you follow the link to read the poems?

I understand the sentiment. I was in the Army for 4 years. I am familiar with the mindset. But that doesn’t change the rather apparent contradiction that the quoted comment holds.

To me it speaks to a conflict the soldiers are dealing regarding this war. They don’t want their sacrifice to be for naught and the anti-war crowd suggests that it was. It isn’t about propaganda or siding with the enemy. It is about soldiers reacting to people that are telling them, unintentionally, that their efforts and sacrifices are, at best, pointless and at worst illegal.

The propaganda argument is one that is made by domestic supporters of the war.

The soldier war opponents seem to be of the school of thought of asking “why are we still there?” We took out Saddam, they had elections, what are we trying to accomplish now. These war opponents, unlike the leftists in the US, seem to be beyond worrying about the initial reasons for the war and the Bush lied syndrome and asking what are we supposed to do now and how the Hell do you expect us to do it?

It seems to me that a lot of liberals truly are puzzled when military people aren’t angry at our government for sending them to war and for the casualties they sustain. While some in the military currently do feel that way, due to disagreement with the civilian leadership, many or most still feel that they signed on to do what the civilian leadership feels is needed for our national security and they’re willing to take on this burden. The anger that many of them feel toward the antiwar crowd is because they don’t want to withdraw before objectives are obtained, because they don’t want the deaths and wounds to be for nothing. I can’t speak to how widespread that opinion is, but this particular soldier certainly shows the depth of that feeling.

And on the post itself, I can’t resist: “Run, Forest, run!”

A bunch of us combat veterans who seen our friends shredded are very very upset with this anti war bunch.

While I understand what he is trying to do it just seems bizarre to me that he would make such a statement. It isn’t the anti-war crowd that got them injured.

What eludes me is a definition of our goals in Iraq. What SPECIFICALLY are trying to achieve?
1 – If Iraq does not allow any permanent US bases on it’s soil – is that victory?
2 – If Iraq does not let any US oil companies extract their oil – is that victory?
3 – If Iraq breaks up into 3 countries – is that victory?
4 – If the Shia in their part of Iraq allow Iranian bases – is that victory?
5 – If Iraq breaks off diplomatic relations with the US – is that victory?
6 – If Iraq does not recognize Israel and actively supports the Palestinians – is that victory?
7 – If Turkey invades Kurdistan – is that victory?

This list of possible repurcussions can go on and on. Yet no one provides a answer to the ultimate question – how long should we continue to fight and spend money in Iraq. All we get are more “Friedman units” and yesterday Patreaus asked for such a unit.

Steve Biddle, a military analyst closely involved with the current military hierarchy, estimated 100,000 troops for 20 years. Is that your definition of victory? Such an enterprise will cost a couple trillion dollars. At that rate, in 2003 we could have gone to Saddam and purchased the entire country. On top of that is the more important cost to our national treasure of soldiers lives and injuries.

Until you can provide specific objectives for Iraq to meet and their timelines, all you are doing is emotionally dreaming. How about it Michael – are you up to the challenge of laying out specific objectives and timelines?