Political Punch

Wow, Spock, you're persistent. You're dead wrong, of course, but you're persistent. I really don't have the time or the patience to explain civilian control of the military to you if you don't get it by now--and you don't get it.

SteveW - please note there is only one civilian in charge of our military and that is the President and he as he should lets the Generals write up the initial stategy and he reviews it. We do not have 90 or how ever many in the house running our military

SteveW - When we declare war or go to war the military needs to make the decisions of how to win, now they do not decide to go to war, but how to fight it.

The countries you named are all socialists (except Nazi) so would they not be like the socialists we have running now, ie Hillary, Obama and company

What you point out are two different things a goverment and war strategy.

It is a sad thing when patriotism and grief are used to justify a corrupt administration fighting a war that began with lies, continues with lies and inept policies. I am sorry for the loss of these precious lives, but it doesn't change the facts. Define "winning the war", we are supporting an Iraqi government that is not supported by all of the Iraqi people! This means we are choosing sides in a civil war and contributing to the genocide. 1,800 Iraqi died last month - read the Iraqi casualty reports - it is just getting worse and we still do not have a plan for these people. This cannot continue - we do not have the money or troops for this to continue. If we reinstate the draft, maybe, but define "winning" define the enemy and the goals, we are not fighting and army here, we are fighting "insurgents" creating more terrorists and hatred and killing the people we are supposed to be helping. Meanwhile our country is left with open borders and we are spending 7 billion a month securing Iraq! Nobody wants to say that these fine soldiers died for nothing, so will we just send more to die the same way? What's the spin on that - more peace with honor or should we just bury our head in the sand and let the slaughter continue? I am not a coward and I do support our troops, but I am not chicken____ enough to say we are winning when clearly we are not and keep askning for support for a failed effort due to "poor planning and judgement". We have lost over 3,700 American lives, with over 27,oooo wounded, we have spent 2 trillion dollars, displaced millions of Iraqi people, with hundreds of thousand dead and wounded and this is "winning the war". We just can't wave the flag and sing God bless America, we have some difficult decisions to make and somebody better grow some _____ and start making them!

I think the problem is that we are trying to win a war without having civilian casualties. We could end the war in Iraq very quickly if we didn't care about the civilian casualties. We all know that the people who flew the planes on 9/11 did not care about civilian casualties, they did not hit a military target. Did we originally go into Iraq to find the weapons of mass destruction and end Hussein's reign or to find the terrorists who attacked our country? I need help in understanding this. It's been 6 years!!!

We still have a large number of illegal immigrants in our country. I would have thought that after the attack, we would have closed the borders and done something more to get all illegal immigrants out of our country. I am not against immigration. I am against illegal immigrants.

I'm also not as politically informed as I would like to be, but I'm trying to become more informed. I want to feel that I have a good understanding of the issues with the election coming up in '08.

I'll take whatever feedback ya'll have.
Thanks

Wrong you are, Spock. As much as it complicates the job of military strategists, even they wouldn't trade it for your system. It's called 'civilian control of the military'. I don't always like the results, either. But, I really don't like history's examples of countries that used your system--'politics should never play a part in military strategy'. To name a few of those countries--Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, North Korea, and, of course, Iraq before we got there.

Politics should never play a part in Military strategy, Period

Well..it's not often that I agree with both cordelia 525 and moveon on one topic. But, yes, the campaign does stem from the unpopularity of the war. In the 60 years since WWII, there never has been a popular war in the minds of U.S. citizens, win, lose, or draw. In war, you spend too much, make many mistakes, sometimes make the wrong people rich, and lose many good men and women. So saying the above about this war doesn't make any valid points as to whether it should continue. The only question, in my mind, is whether we have a valid aim, and stand to accomplish something of value in terms of national security or another peoples' well-being. I suppose the spots will try to argue that. Moveon is right, in that openly displaying the awful cost of war may not have the political benefit intended. We'll see. While some people decry how military decisions are muddied by politics, I rather like living in a country where we still can do that, whichever side we're on.

About time true Americans that want to win this War on Terror (World War 3) spoke up more.

cordelia525 - so by your definition the mere existence of the lib party shows the extent that Americans popular view of winning this war is?

Support for winning the war has gone up! I do not understand why it is not 100% but hey thats what our military is fighting for Freedom.

Funny thing the left has the 3 major news outlets, three cable news shows but yet they complain if someone speaks the truth and not their propaganda.

FYI - It is not a Republican group it is a True American Group.

Were those real soldiers in the NYT editorial or made up like in the past from other Lib papers?

The efforts of "Freedom's Watch" are akin to putting lipstick on a pig: you can use the most expensive lipstick you want, but, in the end, it will still be lipstick on a pig.

This group has the right of course to present its point of view. I sincerely doubt that it will change many minds.

Ya mean ole Ruppert not giving them free time with the Propaganda??? tsk tsk tsk -- Ari Fletcher does he have a silent "roving" partner????

They have the freedom to say what they want. (So too do the infantry unit that went public with their opinions via an NYT editorial that ran this week.) The mere existence of this group is an indication of the extent to which the war is unpopular. I hope the PR effort is a failure.