The UN, US and Iraq IV

CDK,

I have come to respect your views on most things as you tend to be pretty level headed. I often find my self disagreeing with you as often as I find my self agreeing with you.

The American military, as with most militaries, has the interst of America as it's guiding priciple. The US military has done more good for the world than any military in the history of the world. Whether it's humanitarian aide in Africa, or military intervention in Korea, the US military is a force for good. Never in the past century has the US military been anything but. It has defended Europe, twice from the tyranny of an oppressive government, protected South Korea from the communist incursion of the North. Protected other places in the world from tyrants that would go against American interests. I am not saying that our military is some benevolent world cop, as it is quite selfish in it's actions. Especially during the cold war when the greater world good came from keeping the spread of communism to a minimum. Our country has sacrificed Millions of it's citizens in efforts to protect others.

So, when you reject the "notion that militaries serve to protect freedoms and ideals" you are being hasty in my opinion. I whole heartedly believe the notion that our military serves to protect OUR freedoms and ideals.

The media has had a hypocritical self imposed ban on showing the 9/11 attack and aftermath, conversely they seem more than willing to have a camera on every body bag and wounded soldier that returns from current wars. Just like CNN staged the 'Stack The Vote' fiasco, media of their ilk had rather undermine our efforts than remind the viewers of why we do some of the things we do.

I cannot be critical of the media without also being critical of the propaganda this admin. has put out, both factions do plenty to hurt their image, trust and cause.

Just for perspective, US WWII combat deaths amounted to some 300,000. Axis combat deaths ran to over 10,000,000, with somewhere around 25,000,000 civilians, Axis and Allied combined added on. How many of who died for what doesn't mean a damned thing. What matters is who survived, and how they live.

McG,

I agree that throughout history the US military is easily one of the more benevolent.

But I disagree that "the US military is a force for good". That assumes a marriage that doesn't exist. We have frequently acted without "good" being a factor.

Your addition of "our" is the point of failure as I reject the distinction (of us/them).

But the real part where it gets tricky is this, we have some universal values. Take freedom for example. Our wars are often not about freedom but are sold as such.

Take our latest war for example, you will find great disagreement about whether it was for freedom or not.

During the campaign for war I saw many people telling those who did not support the war that they were wrong and that the military is what gives them the freedom to be wrong.

And it is THIS that is a bone in my throat, it assumes being right about a controversial subject but furthermore assumes being right not just individually but being right on the behalf of a nation and on behalf of an ideal.

What it comes down to is that when there is an agenda, it's often married to a more basic ideal. And it is this that I reject.

For example, partisan people with an agenda decided to make Arnold's election about respect for women, when it was not so.

The war in Iraq was sold as a war for our immediate and urgent protection, when that didn't pan out it became a war for "freedom".

And this is what I reject, no military can assume an inherent benevolence. No ideal is married to a course of action.

Aunt B,

As always, you will be an honored guest at Corazon anytime. Though I differ considerably with my youngest son, his current views are really not so very different than those I held as a youth. One son as a career Army officer and the the other socially conscious and idealistic. I don't think that reflects poorly on the way the boys were raised. Who can ask for more that that their children are independent and committed to causes they deeply believe in.

It seems that in my intention to help Craven find a rewarding career in Military Intelligence, I inadvertently was helping the Army ... and by extension, the nation. My efforts on Craven's behalf were unusual in that I never before, not even for my son, tried draw favorable attention to a potential soldier. No good deed goes unpunished, and I've learned my lesson.

When we talk about the debt that is owed the military, we aren't advocating that the debt is owed to any particular person. We are instead talking in general terms. The nation would not have been founded, without the military sacrifices made by regular soldiers during one of the longest and most difficult wars in our history. The nation grew from 13 weak states clustered along the Atlantic shore, to embrace the entire continent largely because of military might. The Union was preserved after our most contentious war where copious blood was shed by Americans on both sides of the conflict. American forces were the critical element in bringing the Great War to a conclusion. It was the US military that, with ample assistance from allies, defeated the Nazi and Japanese bid to enslave the world. ROK owes its continued existence to American GI's. It was the American nuclear shield that prevented nuclear war and Soviet world domination.

Without the military might of this nation, we would not today be the richest and strongest nation in history. We sleep soundly at night without fear that the secret police will arrive to take us off to a death camp. No one can shove their religion, or politics down out throats. We can say what we please, even when those words demean the flag and those who shed their blood defending it.

I suppose that it is clear to all that I'm a dinosaur, a throwback to an earlier time. I am a Patriot who firmly believes in the Constitution and all the wonderful things that this nation has stood for, even though the nation has many shameful spots on its history. I feel that I owe an immense debt to all the those who have served in the military from the 18th century through the 21st century. It may be hokey, but I'm not ashamed to be as sentimental about the country as those who said, "My country, right or wrong, my country still".

Asherman took the words right out of my mouth!

Seriously though, Asherman expresses my feelings as well.

Hmmm - balance in all things Asherman!

Sure, America' military made the crucial difference - in the end - in WWII - and it has certainly helped make the USA the power it is today and allowed many positiive things.

It may also be worth remembering that that very power has played its part in allowing the USA to create conditions (eg the Congo - remember Lmumba? - Gautemala, Chile and so on) where others CANNOT (or could not) sleep at night secure in any knowledge that secret police - or death squads - would not kill them - just as thousands of their country people were killed.

Any military is a tool - made up, sadly, of young lives as well as hardware - and its function will be as noble and so forth as that of the hand wielding it.

Yeah, right on .... we sure kicked those naked savages asses from one end of the country to the other to get started and now with Gods servant on the point we can finally have the country we deserve so richly .... heil

One of those "shameful spots" was slavery and the military of this nation were fighting each other. Spots, I hope was a euphemism for blots as in disgrace. I agree with Craven's observation that this may be too emotionally charged a day where we as citizens must at least honor the symbol of the Unknown Soldier but it shouldn't just be for those who died even if for some enterprise that occurred primarily due to misbegotten politics and diplomacy. It should be for all veterans who fought in wars in the spirit of doing their duty as a citizen for the citizens of this country.

How so? To make such an assertion one would have to have the hubris of determining what is good for the nation. I certainly reject the notion that I'd be helping the nation by joining the military.



Asherman,

A) You assume that your unsolicited efforts were "on my behalf", they most certainly weren't.

B) You assume that you did a "good deed" and that I "punish" the "good deed". What you fail to consider is that I might not agree that it was a good deed, I might even find it patronizing, insulting, pushy and nosy despite it being sourced from good intentions.

All you did, was say "go for intel" ad nauseum and then launch the bathos. The bathos was off-putting.

I have never complained about "drawing favorable attention to a potential soldier" I complain about the patronizing and the bathos. You choose to characterize the criticism as "punishing a good deed".



You can't assert this as a fact, many nations were founded under the same circumstances without going to war. Most of England's colonies didn't need to go to war.



America is the nation that created nuclear weapons. America is the only nation to have used a nuclear weapon in war. America played an integral part in the nuclear arms race.

to state that we prevented nuclear war is decidedly one-sided and is the very myopic thinking I have been criticizing. Our actions during the cold war were far more provocative than that of the Soviets, we probed deeper with submarines and were willing to be far more aggressive in the chess game.

America helped created the Soviet nemesis by declaring war on an ideology.

To credit America for preventing a a war is a tad absurd, as we did more than anyone else to create that situation in the first place.



That is true of many nations who are not as militaristic. We did not invent those freedoms and the military has precious little to do with them except in that the militaristic are happy to invoke those ideals to defend their militarism.

You illustrated the very thing I had stated a qualm with, you take basic human ideals and credit the military for their existence. It is not a given.

What are you referring to Asherman?

Question
I offer absolution to Aunt Bee for her posting of my unedited remarks.

As for my father's odd preoccupation and virtual deification of all things military, I can only add one more puzzled expression to the board.

I'm slightly dissappointed that the board reacted to my question of changing attitudes towards our Iraq only once...from someone on the left who said that there is no chance of revising their opinion.

I'm dissappointed, because, at root, that is what I imagine what this board is for: a dialogue of interested parties that have somewhat open minds and are willing to change their views in accordance to facts, rather a crowd ramming their views down each others throats.

If no one concedes that "here" they change their minds, that at "this point" they would admit that they were wrong, then we make no progress into solving any problems. We risk perpetuating the deep division of left and right of this country - already exasperated by the current administrations domestic and foreign policies.

I'm particularly dissapointed that the one poster who insisted they would not change their minds under any circumstance was from the left. One of the best traits of the left is to be able to assess different points of view with equal weight - we are "liberal" in the best possible defination.

With that in mind, here's my criteria for change in my attitude of our Iraq policy:

1. Body count - a )we've already passed this for Iraqi civilians - my figure was about 3,500...slightly more than was lost in the 911 attacks - generally thought to be a catastrophe for the US. there are to date over 7,000 Iraqi citizens dead due to our invasion and occupation...not including victoms of the stratospheric crime rate that has blossomed after Saddam has left the visible arena.

b) Body count for the US - well, the limit for me was 2500 back in April. We won't get anywhere near that number anytime soon - which is good news. But the sustained and building attacks (up to 30 a day at the moment), make that body count moot to the general public. Our soldiers (reservists) are getting killed one+ a day, and the American public is asking "what for?" more and more often.

Summary: body count limit is mixed. Too many Iraqi citizens have died, but US troop casualities are minimal - through the consistency and now escalation of attacks bears heavily on troop and domestic morale.

How all this would change my mind: The amount and ferocity of attacks
declines significantly and soon. Also, the general Iraqi population begins to cooperate with coalition authorities along with the interim government in helping to root out resistance fighters. Doubtful, but I woulf reassess my position.

2) Weapons of Mass Distruction found. Not planted. Significant quantities. And not former WMD, such as chemical weapons way past their due date.

Depending on the quantities and quality of the WMD found, there might also need to be corraborating documents detailing an imminent attack on US soil or forces before I can see a clear reason to support our action.

3) It is uncovered that Saddam in fact DID have close ties to al Queda and had some influence in the 9-11 attack.

4) The installation of a non-puppet self-reliant Iraqi government within 2 years.

5) The mid east region becomes stabilized in the next year.

6) More mass graves found. Not going to happen of course. But the fact that there was indeed a humanitarian crisis in the late 80's/early 90's has no bearing whatsoever in regards to our recent action. Indeed, those mass graves get far more press today than when they were originally discovered, leading me to think that those who trot them out as a justification for war are humanitarians only when it suits them.

Okay, responses?

The American Army was pushed down the Korean Peninsula by the force of the assault into what is known as the Pusan Perimeter. It looked as if the North Korean attack was successful and that total victory was theirs for the taking. In the areas taken over by the DPRK thousands of Korean citizens were rounded up and murdered in mass. Anyone suspected of "Captitalist" leanings, or who might resist totalitarian rule by the North was expendable.

Inside the Pusan Perimeter, the Army held on until MacArthur could muster the forces necessary for their relief. Instead of directly reinforcing Pusan, or withdrawing those trapped forces ala Dunkirk, the General decided on a flank landing at Inchon. Inchon was considered an almost impossible for an amphibious assault, and the DPRK forces were spread pretty thin. From Inchon, the Americans were able to cut the supply lines south, and recapture Seoul only a short distance north. The American counter-attack was extremely effective and proceeded up the peninsula at a fast pace. American force was divided into two lines of advance due to the mountain chain running the length of the peninsula.

As the American Army advanced to within easy distance of the Yalu River, the border to the PRC, both the Chinese and Harry Truman became increasingly nervous. MacArthur made intemperate remarks and assured the President that the Chinese would do nothing. Wrong. The Chinese came across the border in force during mid-winter. Again the Americans were surprised and pushed south in the face of human wave attacks. The USMC will always remember the Chosin reservoir where the casualty count was particularly high.

LightWizard,

You are correct that my wording misled. We honor today with a minute's silence not only those who died, but all who have served and done their duty.

"Spots" or "blots", our forbearers certainly built the nation we are today using tactics and policies that are today considered morally and ethically suspect. Hindsight is 20.20, but I'm unconvinced that the values of one time and place are the proper balance by which to judge others. Until the mid-20th century few people anywhere challenged the chauvinism that formed the basis of most national and international policy. Even today, chauvinism is a major element in the political situation around the globe. Is it wrong? Probably, but it is also an inescapable fact. American policy has consistently been formed and carried out with the ideal that our democratic principles will make the world better. Alright, that was also the claim of the Nazi and Communist ideologues as well. Still, there is a huge difference between American policy and those of dictators who consciously murder millions in death camps.

The Military is a Police Force
The Military is the protector of property and capital of the Empire. Casting the Military as defenders of "Freedom" is merely a romantic notion.

Veterans Day
Posting from several sites. It's a long post, so I'll forgo comments...

1. Dailykos:

"Some wonder why I am so vociferous in my condemnations of our administration and its dogged pursuit of Bush's War.
Unless you have been a veteran, you don't know what it's like to wear our nation's uniform. The sense of pride, the sense of responsibility it inspires. We love our country, and put our lives on the line on its behalf. We believe in what our country stands for -- notions of democracy, and freedom, and truth and justice. We are most intimately aware of the ultimate sacrifice paid by so many of our brothers in arms, because we ourselves were prepared to pay it.

Yet few of the people in charge made that sacrifice. Rather, they went out of their way to avoid serving their country. Cheney had "better things to do", Bush went AWOL. Virtually all of the "pundits" cheerleeding this war found creative ways to avoid serving. Wars are for the poor and the stupid to fight. Not for exhalted members of society like themselves.

Well **** them.

Today is not for them. It's for those of us who wore that uniform, and those who continue serving our country even as their leaders fail them, lie to them, and use them as pawns in their great political and economic chessboard.

And for those of our brothers and sisters in uniform who gave their lives on behalf of noble causes, and those not so noble.

Nobody dare take out their frustrations on our men and women in uniform. They are doing their job, best they can, under impossible conditions.

The political "leadership", on the other hand, can rot in hell."

2. Salon/Joe Conason:

"Nov. 11, 2003 | No amount of money -- and he means it
The billions included by Congress in the president's supplemental budget fall well below estimates of what will be needed to rebuild Iraq. So the Bush administration is looking everywhere for money (while averting its gaze from the tax revenues squandered on wealthy contributors). Among the funds they've found is a court judgment won against the Iraqi government by a group of former American prisoners of war who were brutally tortured during the 1991 war. The White House position -- which seems likely to prevail -- is that any frozen Iraqi funds should be turned over for reconstructing Iraq rather than used to pay damages to those tortured U.S. soldiers and officers.

The decision provides yet more evidence of the tender White House concern for enlisted Americans -- as anyone could tell from Scott McClellan's remarkable response to questions on this topic last Thursday. It's worth reproducing in full, if only to marvel at McClellan's increasing resemblance to Ari Fleischer:

"Q: Scott, there are 17 former POWs from the first Gulf War who were tortured and filed suit against the regime of Saddam Hussein. And a judge has ordered that they are entitled to substantial financial damages. What is the administration's position on that? Is it the view of this White House that that money would be better spent rebuilding Iraq rather than going to these former POWs?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know that I view it in those terms, David. I think that the United States -- first of all, the United States condemns in the strongest terms the brutal torture to which these Americans were subjected. They bravely and heroically served our nation and made sacrifices during the Gulf War in 1991, and there is simply no amount of money that can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went through at the hands of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime. That's what our view is.

Q: But, so -- but isn't it true that this White House --

Q: They think there is an --

Q: Excuse me, Helen -- that this White House is standing in the way of them getting those awards, those financial awards, because it views it that money better spent on rebuilding Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, there's simply no amount of money that can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering --

Q: Why won't you spell out what your position is?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm coming to your question. Believe me, I am. Let me finish. Let me start over again, though. No amount of money can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went through at the hands of a very brutal regime, at the hands of Saddam Hussein. It was determined earlier this year by Congress and the administration that those assets were no longer assets of Iraq, but they were resources required for the urgent national security needs of rebuilding Iraq. But again, there is simply no amount of compensation that could ever truly compensate these brave men and women.

Q: Just one more. Why would you stand in the way of at least letting them get some of that money?

MR. McCLELLAN: I disagree with the way you characterize it.

Q: But if the law that Congress passed entitles them to access frozen assets of the former regime, then why isn't that money, per a judge's order, available to these victims?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I pointed out that that was an issue that was addressed earlier this year. But make no mistake about it, we condemn in the strongest possible terms the torture that these brave individuals went through --

Q: You don't think they should get money?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- at the hands of Saddam Hussein. There is simply no amount of money that can truly compensate those men and women who heroically served --

Q: That's not the issue --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- who heroically served our nation.

Q: Are you opposed to them getting some of the money?

MR. McCLELLAN: And, again, I just said that that had been addressed earlier this year.

Q: No, but it hasn't been addressed. They're entitled to the money under the law. The question is, is this administration blocking their effort to access some of that money, and why?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't view it that way at all. I view it the way that I stated it, that this issue was --

Q: But you are opposed to them getting the money.

MR. McCLELLAN: This issue was addressed earlier this year, and we believe that there's simply no amount of money that could truly compensate these brave men and women for what they went through and for the suffering that they went through at the hands of Saddam Hussein --

Q: So no money.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and that's my answer. "


3. Boston Herald via dailywarnews.blogspot.com, a site I can't recommend enough, especially to my father, Asherman.

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/315/region/Veterans_compare_Iraq_with_Vie:.shtml

4. San Francisco Chronicle via Commondreams.org:

Veterans Battle on the Home Front
by Maile Melkonian

EVEN AS President Bush sends American soldiers into Iraq, he is cutting their benefits.

Two Californians -- Pfc. Karina Lau, 20, of Livingston, and Staff Sgt. Paul A. Velazquez, 29, from San Diego -- died last week when their Chinook helicopter was shot down over Fallujah, Iraq. Fourteen others perished with them. I wonder if the 20 injured soldiers who survived the crash know their veteran's benefits are being torpedoed by the same folks who put them in harm's way.

A system that once provided health care for those who served their country is now reneging on that promise. The president has refused a congressional request for $275 million in emergency funds to cover the Veterans Administration health-care shortfall last year. Remember, that was the year Bush got an extra $50 billion for his so-called war on terrorism.

Now he wants to slash $2 billion more from the VA's strained budget for 2004, and continue the assault on benefits over the next decade. House Republicans voted to take a whopping $28 billion from vets over 10 years -- on the same March day they passed a resolution supporting our troops in Iraq.

Department of Veterans Affairs head, Anthony Principi, is the Bush appointee in charge of implementing this strategy. "We have reformed our department," he touts. Indeed, Principi's tenure has seen a steady decline in the number of nurses at VA facilities, and those remaining are routinely subjected to mandatory overtime. Bobby L. Harnage, of the American Federation of Government Employees, states, "The veterans' health-care system is in a state of shock from the combined traumas of flat-line budgets, staffing cuts, bed closures, restructuring and contracting out."

As you read this, more than 200,000 veterans have been waiting six months or more (two years for some!) for their first VA appointment.

And the system is getting more expensive to use. Bush more than tripled the cost of medications to veterans in February 2002, while he sent tens of thousands of Americans to fight in Afghanistan.

My father happened to survived 20 sorties over Nazi Germany during World War II. Now he suffers from Alzheimer's disease, and has taken to refusing doctors outside the VA system. "Thank goodness for the Veterans Administration, " I thought.

This summer, he received an odd letter from the VA. "Your priority for enrollment in the VA health-care system has been changed to Priority Group 8," it informed him. This brand-new category comes with new rules. Thus, he is eligible for less coverage, at a higher co-pay than before. As it turns out, at least 164,000 veterans have been similarly "reclassified."

More sinister yet is the stipulation that any Group 8 vet who was not enrolled in the system as of Jan. 16, 2003, will no longer be eligible for VA health care at all, with or without copayment. That means that a veteran must either be impoverished or service-related disabled, or both, to qualify. Are our soldiers in Iraq aware of this?

The Veterans for Foreign Wars organization sums it up thus: "The shortage in funding has forced VA to ration health care by increasing waiting times, raising copayment amounts and removing veterans from the system altogether."

In other words, the VA will no longer be a way for a grateful country to treat its veterans with dignity and respect. Instead, it is being turned into a welfare repository for the growing number of former servicemen in poverty.

Squeezing health care isn't the whole story. Pensions, education and other military benefits are also under attack.

Shortchanging veterans started with President Ronald Reagan, who -- like Bush -- avoided combat duty. But the current administration seems bent on gutting benefits to our servicemen and women more than any president since the Veterans Administration was established in 1930.

My condolences go out to the Lau and Velazquez families, and to their surviving comrades.

5. And finally, let us honor those US soldiers who have died in this current conflict:

http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Details.aspx

crumbles, As I've said many times before, I wonder how those bastards in the white house and his minions sleep at night. Giving our troops verbal praise while cutting their benefits is criminal - of conscience, ethics, and humanity. How do they do it?

I believe this administration only believes our form of a capitalistic Republic will change the world, not particularly our brand of diluted democracy. Many countries who are enjoying freedom throughout the world do not agree. We have the biggest stick and we are capable of making and wasting more money than any other country in the world. As a role model, we have some serious introspection in order but not many are willing to do it. Rally 'round the flag boys is the cure all for any doubts.

Regardless what one may think of politicians, the rank-and-file of the military, most of whom no doubt would prefer to have been doing something else more profitable, more comfortable, and less stressful, let alone actively risking their lives, merit the respect of all.

Crumbly,

Just put it down to my dotage, as I once "explained" the foolish notions of the generation or two before my own. I hope you will be bringing a Christmas wish-list from San Francisco so we might be able to save postage by using you as a courier.

As to what would change your mind in re. Iraq, that's a reasonable list. I'm not sure that the body count really has any relevance. It it were worth doing, then the cost is secondary. The number of Iraqis who have died, or will die, as a direct result of our actions is only a small fraction of those killed by their own government. You suggest that the hundreds of thousands of murders by the Iraqi government ceased a decade ago. I doubt that, but if true then it only underscores the degree of oppressive fear that the Iraqi People had to live with. Iraq was not a happy place prior to our intervention. The number of innocent Iraqi casualties today is hard to assess, but I believe that most are killed as a result of attacks waged by Ba'ath die-hards. The number of attacks against Coalition forces may be up, but again that doesn't say much about how widespread the resistence might be; a few may mount more operations than the many. American casualties are regretable, but then the war isn't over until the last remenants of the opposition give up. Saddam and his cohorts have adopted a tactic that will prolong the conflict and make reconstruction more difficult. Don't blame the US, blame Saddam. The resistence in those areas that benefited from the dictatorship of Sadam and the Ba'ath Party is far greater than in the south where the oppression was worse. It seems to mee that we are winning the loyalty of an increasing number of Iraqis, and that the tide is running in our favor.

I believe that your items "4" and "5" will occur, but it may not be possible to achieve those within the time-frame you suggest. The Middle East is, and has been for many years a cauldrin of hate and open warfare between groups who are terribly intolerant. To suppose that we can achieve a peaceful stabilization in the next year is pretty far fetched. On the other hand, I think we may indeed pretty much return governmental control to the Iraqis within two years. The problem is that first the remenants of the old regime have to be pacified, and that may take some time. The sooner the Iraqi's can resume control, the better. We do need to establish Iraq as a stable government tolerant of ethnic and religious difference as an example to the region. A stablized Iraq would go a long way to resolving many of the problems that haunt the Middle East/Southwest Asia.

Whether or not we find significant quantities of Terror Weapons (I really hate the term WMD, as inaccurate), we had every reason to believe that those weapons and the will to use them existed prior to our intervention. I still believe that the objectionable programs existed and that time will eventually confirm that. I do not believe that the US Intelligence community knew that there were few, or no forbidden weapons systems and programs inside Iraq. That may be an Intelligence failure, but one that was dictated by the political correctness policies dictated by many past administrations that hated the use of HUMINT.

Whether or not Saddam had close ties with Bin Laden, it is clear that he and his ruling party did finance, sponsor, train and encourage terrorist acts.

Now you've asked what would change my mind, also a fair question. I had intended to wait until you were on the ground to discuss this, but here at least is an outline.

1. Clear and unambigous evidence that Iraq did not finance, sponsor, train or encourage terrorist acts outside its borders. Show me that Iraq was clearly no danger to any of its neighbors and was not a major destabilizing element in the region.

2. Clear and unambigous evidence that Iraq lived up to it's cease fire commitments, and that the US Government KNEW that Iraq had fully complied with those commitments.

3. Clear and unambigous evidence that the quality of life in Iraq has been made universally worse by our intervention in the long run. We should not expect to turn the place into a paradise in fifty years, but things should be much improved after say, five years. How long did we have to occupy Germany and Japan? If we had cut short our occupation in those defeated nations in short order, would they have later become the industrial giants they later became? The number of die-hards in Germany and Japan wasn't as large, and their defeat was accomplished with far greater death and destruction. I think that it will take years before we can begin to judge the results of our intervention in Iraq.

Hello weaselboy! After six years of active and four years of Guard service I have less than zero respect for the institution and the losers who are career enlisted. The military thrives on mediocrity. The military rewards blind obedience and condemns independent thought. It also encourages a sort of lowest common denominator existance. It was a definite eye-opener. Those of us with more than one functioning brain cell took what it had to offer and skedaddled! No more all expenses paid vacations to such garden spots as Iraq, Somolia, or some of the finer training areas in Germany and the Ft. Lewis Military Reservation for me!