Open Letter to Bubba

FreeDuck wrote:

timberlandko wrote:

He thinks differently than does Anderson, and so do I. One of the things my kid thinks about, and worries about, is that America might be persuaded to abandon the Iraqis just as she was persuded to abandon the Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians a generation ago.

That is, unfortunately, one of the problems with invading other nations. At some point, unless you kill them all and replace them with your own people, you will have to leave.

Poppycock - argumentum ad absurdam and false dillema/undistributed middle. In Iraq, a few thousand murderous thugs hold hostage a nation of millions. When the Iraqi people achieve the capacity to ensure their own security, to protect themselves from the thugs, there will be neither need for nor presence of an occupying security force.

Had The US not abandoned Southeast Asia, Pol Pot's murderous thugs would not have had opportunity to perpetrate their atrocities. John Kerry's legacy? Look to The Killing Fields.

ROBERT ELLSWORTH, NATO Ambassador 1969-'71: By the middle '60s, Rumsfeld could see that we were not figuring out a strategy to win in Vietnam. Neither could we figure out a strategy to withdraw.

NARRATOR: Rumsfeld's persistent pushing to get the troops out quicker put him at odds with the president. Secret audiotapes revealed the president's unhappiness.

Pres. RICHARD M. NIXON: But on Rumsfeld, we've done a hell of lot for Rumsfeld.

H.R. HALDEMAN: I agree.

Pres. RICHARD M. NIXON: I think Rumsfeld may be not too long for this world.

H.R. HALDEMAN: I sure don't think he's ever going to be a solid member of the ship.

Pres. RICHARD M. NIXON: Well, then let's dump him right after this.

The main difference between the Vietnam debacle and the Iraq endeavor is the leadership. The Dems, Kennedy and Johnson mainly, engineered the Southeast Asian mess, and established a paradigm of Washington/Pentagon micromanagement of the day-to-day operations.

Kerry's legacy? Yes, in that Kerry was among the highly visible leadership of the radical leftist, enemy aiding-and-abeting America Worst crowd that effectively prevented the Nixon administration from adequately and prudently prosecuting the war effort, thereby dooming millions in Southeast Asia to tyranny and oppression and fostering the impression among those dedicated to eradicating freedom and liberty that The US lacked the resolve to fulfill its obligations and stand up to opposition.

The American Left of a generation ago, along with its consequent Carter and Clinton administrations, bears chief responsibility for the current danger posed to civilization by the so-called radical Islamic fundamentalists and their allied thugs. We are at war with the jihadists, who count among their supporters, enablers, and allies the Anti-Bush, Anti-US, Anti-War dupes who blithely carry their water.

Yesterday I heard the president say in his speech,"as the Iraqis stand up the US forces will stand down."

Can you explain how that message differs to any significant extent from the Nixon/Rumsfeld "Vietnamization plan"?

BOB WOODWARD: And then the war planning, there are endless sessions, you know, hours and hours of Franks and Rumsfeld, and Franks and Rumsfeld with the NSC or with President Bush, going through the details, and charts and slides and these are the assumptions and this is how many troops we might send. It might take 90 days here, or we're going to try to get it down to 30. It's the kind of microscopic detail that's reviewed at the Rumsfeld level. It's quite astonishing.

THOMAS RICKS, The Washington Post: But Franks wants still several hundred thousand troops to go in. And Rumsfeld has this process where he kind of chips away and chips away at this belief, asking questions, "Why do you need that? Why do you need that?" The Pentagon dubs this the "iterative process." But really, I think it's more a process of erosion.

NARRATOR: Some thought it had about it the echo of earlier civilian involvement, like the role civilians played in planning and operations in Vietnam.

THOMAS RICKS: I've heard stories again and again of Rumsfeld actually crossing off individual units from deployment plans, saying, "You really don't need this. You don't need this."

NARRATOR: Finally, after a few months, Rumsfeld's persistence began to pay off. Franks, who declined to be interviewed for this program, was wavering.

THOMAS RICKS: The Army looks upon this process, I think, with a little bit of horror during that period of war plan formation. I remember one day the general said to me, "Tommy's drunk the Kool-Aid." And that meant, "Yeah, Franks had gone over to kind of the belief in a smaller, narrower force."

Not my fault The Left is dead wrong on this and can't/won't recognize, accept, and address their error. Fortunately for civilization, The Left is doing its utmost to, and succeeding at, further marginalizing itself and aiding the cause of consolidating their opposition's power and influence. All politics follow pendulum swings; the current direction eventually will reverse - though not for a long while yet.

Not my fault The Left is dead wrong on this and can't/won't recognize, accept, and address their error. Fortunately for civilization, The Left is doing its utmost to, and succeeding at, further marginalizing itself and aiding the cause of consolidating their opposition's power and influence. All politics follow pendulum swings; the current direction eventually will reverse - though not for a long while yet.

Anybody who enjoys, applauds, and celebrates war is a fool. Anyone surprised that those who have experienced war might experience negative repercussions from the experience not only is a fool but also is a fool who has never experienced war.

Are you ready to go to war with Iran?