|
|||||
As befits a great nationIt is proof once again that all politics is personal, and when it’s personal that no opportunity for low pettiness should be passed up in favor of any sense of institutional gravitas or decency: The US Congressional leadership – elected leaders of our highest branch of legislative government – plans what is in effect a work stoppage in order to delay delivering a critical piece of legislation that must in any case be reworked in order to fund the troops that they themselves committed to the field of battle. The delivery to the President of a much labored over but fatally flawed and pork-laden war funding supplemental bill – itself a piece of absurd theater – for his long-threatened veto will be delayed in order to celebrate what is for his political adversaries an important anniversary:
Neener, neener, Mr. President. That ceremony was intended to recognize the accomplishments of the crew of the USS Abraham Lincoln, a ship that had just returned from an exceptionally arduous 10-month deployment – the longest combat deployment of an aircraft carrier in decades. Six months is a long time at sea, enclosed inside a noisy, dangerous machine, working 14-hour days for weeks and months on end – no weekends off, no holidays aboard a carrier – surrounded by 5000 people you might not ordinarily choose to associate with, far removed from the creature comforts of home, family and friends. Not everyone is built to hack a six-month deployment, people quit the service from the strain, families fly apart. Ten months is unutterably longer. Especially when the sixth month comes and goes and you’re still in the Arabian Gulf and frankly no one knows when you’ll be heading home. It can seem like forever. Everyone aboard that ship knew what the banner meant: Lincoln’s mission was accomplished, at least for that deployment – once they arrived in home port, delayed personnel transfers would take place, that particular crew would never again go to sea together. Major combat operations had in fact ended. The outline of the insurgency had not yet taken form and many of what in retrospect would appear to be mistakes in the occupation had not yet been committed. The wounding grievance of that ceremony would be first nurtured in private and then – increasingly – trotted out in triumph: The mission was not accomplished! You didn’t win your little war! Everything about that ceremony grated against the raw nerves of fringe members a political left still traumatized by the election of 2000, a left whose self-loathing had been laid bare in the aftermath of 9/11, a left further enraged to the point of infantilism by the quick destruction of an illiberal Taliban regime that was supposed to show an imperialistic Amerikkka the error of its ways – after all, this was graveyard of empires, and the harsh Afghan winter, etc. They had such fond hopes! This was the part of a political left already outraged that the Iraq war had been sought by a man they reflexively loathed, and authorized not just by their hated political opponents, but also by large numbers of what they conditionally thought of as their own party. The fact that the kinetic phase of the war had ended so quickly, with so few casualties, disappointing their ghoulish predictions of a months-long slugfest with thousands of telegenic casualties, military and civilian was bad enough. The fact that the President flew out to the carrier on a military jet with a sign waving on the island saying “Mission Accomplished”? Almost unbearable. But I don’t think that’s really what sent them over the top, that banner. Because even the most rabidly foaming partisan can not really be pleased by the fact that nearly 3000 American lives have been lost to support their political perspective. That banner merely serves as a convenient foil, a “politically correct” substitute for what really made them mad. No, this is the picture from that day that really sent them around the bend, for reasons best left to professional psychoanalysts:
There have been times when I dread that certain of the war’s most inveterately hostile opponents – the kind of people still so agitated by that banner, for example, and to whom the Congressional leadership now pays gratuitous obeisance by staging this little theater – would rather that their country lose a war, than that man in the flight suit there should be thought of as a president who won one. 70 comments to As befits a great nation |
  |
||||
|
Copyright © 2009 Neptunus Lex - All Rights Reserved |
|||||
Lex ?
He tightened up the harness good and tight because of good advice, and remembering his training, too.
Maybe Laura gets to have an opinion about his actual physical “package”, but certainly nobody else.
Oh, I voted for the man twice, but really had to grit my teeth to do it the second time. Had his fraternity brother Kerry gotten in, well, OMGWTFBBQ!!!
“…Our next Commander in Chief could well be one of the most important in our entire history,…”
And to Lex’s larger point, then what does President Bush’s military record have to do with anything now? It’s been hashed and re-hashed by pundits great and not-so. IMHO the focus should now turn to who we elect in 2008, bearing in mind the statement above.
His record from 2001-2008 is the issue. And it provides more than enough to debate and make a decision on. Problem is, it won’t be a vote for the next guy so much as a belief in who can do the best job of undoing the damage this particular President has done. In that regard the election of 2008, is very like the election of 1968. Bush gets to play the role of Lyndon Johnson-the roles of Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon have not been cast yet.
SS, the only thing Dubyah has in common with Lyndon is that they both came from Texas. The only thing Hillary has in common with Hubert is that their first names start with an H. At least Nixon and Gingrich get to use the same campaign slogan, “Rested & Ready”.
Scratching non-erudite bone-head, Is “tu quoques” good or bad? Or, are two better than one?
F-man-
re- “circumspect aviation junkies”.
Commonly referred to as “adoring fans” if respectful, irritating strap-hangars if not.
BTW, not that I want to add more to this buffoonex, but Algwhore was in the stifling heat o’Nam too, using his Harvard edumacation to write about others harrowing combat……Hand salute.
Skippy- WOW. 890 traps logged in an unlit tube facing backwards-Cojhones!
b2
Correction: facing forwards-with the hatch open after 1985. VAW-115 accident that year scared everybody pretty good.
My original goal a long time ago was to be an A-7 pilot. God in His infinite wisdom had other ideas for me. So I became a rider rather than a flyer. There is probably some sort of sarcastic mileage that can be gotten from that…………..
Don’t be so defensive Skippy- I couldn’t take NOT seeing! Once I trapped sitting backwards in a C-2..Now that I think about it after joining on E-2’s a cuppla times long ago, those heads in the winders WERE facing forward! Me wrong.
b2
We can sit here as long as we want and debate the particulars of decisions made by folks (to serve or not to serve) a long time ago. We can sit here all day and debate the particulars of why one of those men wore a flight suit four years ago. It’s a waste of time, space, and oxygen.
The situation we are faced with now (this being the one that still matters because the outcome has not yet been determined) is that a number of elected non-leaders are trying to lose a conflict we have invested much in for no other reason than they are afraid that the other guy might look good. It’s a conflict that a large number of those detractors voted in favor of, when the decision was put to them.
To those politicians, a bright, stable future for the Iraqi people and the validation of the efforts of our troops just isn’t worth the damage it might do to their chances for re-election. A few years ago those politicians were given a choice: war, or not. They chose war. Now the choice is the lives of millions or the careers of a few… and we know where they stand on that.
Jeff,
Why does a vote made 5 years ago continue to be binding now? Especially in light of the fact that all of the assumptions that vote was based on have been proven to be incorrect. Congress has the legal righ to vote to change such a vote-regardless of the wisdom of such a change. (Which is what the country is really debating here). Bright future for Iraq? Not anytime soon. Stable-also not happening anytime soon and the reasons for that lie with the inability of the Iraqis themselves to capitalize on the opportunity that they have been given by the work of the Armed Forces.
Even the President himself is backpeddling from his previous definitions of “stability”. That’s because the conflict there is no longer ours to win or lose and he knows that. We can continue it in its current form or we can do something that changes the chemistry enought the inevitable violent reaction gets done and over with.
The real question is deciding which course is really in the US interest. That course may or may not be aligned with Iraqi interest ( and I am in agreement with those who say it is different). If the US is to stay in Iraq, the public has to be shown something besides the prospect of war without end, which is all they are seeing now.
There always was a limited amount of time to do this. The President knew it when he started it, the Congress knew it and in the end the public knew it. We are in the fourth overtime now and the people are frustrated. The game was supposed to be over long before this. Nobody is showing them that there will not be a fifth or a sixth overtime. January 20, 2009 cannot come soon enough.
Sorry, Skippy-san, but I respectfully disagree. We’re still in Korea, still expecting a fight there. We’re still in Japan and Germany. How is Iraq that much different, besides the man in charge. No one is crying for all our armed forces to be brought home from all foreign ports and bases; only from Iraq where there is actual fighting going on. If we leave Iraq (IMHO) then we are opening up ourselves to permanent warfare here at home in all theaters of our lives. If we contain the fighting there, where the jihadis come to fight us, then we are safer here at home.
No matter how much people disagree with the president, I am amazed at the things he has accomplished that seemed impossible. When he announced the tax cuts (way back when) he said he wanted to cut $600 Billion or so. All the democrats screamed and cried about raising taxes instead, but he stuck to his guns. Next thing I heard was the democrats saying the tax cut was too big, and no more talk of tax increases. Next was the tax cuts in place, and darn if they weren’t record breaking in size. He gets what he wants, slowly by surely.
I think he is terribly “misunderestimated” and maligned mainly because of the priggishness of Al Gore in losing the election. By dragging everything out instead of conceding gracefully, he delayed most of Bush’s appointments and set the tone for Democrats to be uncooperative in the extreme.
I blame Al Gore and the Democrats for not being able to face reality and staying in denial that there is a world outside the US where people really do want to kill ALL of us.
Well said Mrs. P3,I would have to add, Wmd was but one reason to go and depose Saddam out of more than a dozen violations of UNSC mandates, including violating the terms of the 1991 cease fire agreement.
Skippy-San postulates-The game was supposed to be over long before this.
I distinctly remember The CIC saying that this WAR was going to take a very long time, Generational, I believe the term was.
Go girl, P-3 wife. I like the way you say it! I can remember W also saying this was going to long, hard work. I think the left had so much fun with throwing George’s colorful metaphors back in his face, they didn’t listen to what he said… or even think about it.
Skippy… despite all of the missed assumptions by Tenet and his crew (after all, even he said intelligence is collecting data and making assumptions in his book), wouldn’t you agree that our troops staying in Iraq is in the interest of the USA?
If we leave precipitously, I think the giant sucking sound of the vacuum that would be Baghdad and Iraq would be disastrous. Wouldn’t it be better to avoid the chaos remaining after our departure? What kind of threats would our homeland experience then?
One of my own who’s served there says, “at least we have them all in one place… and we can shoot at them when the need arises.” What kind of terrorism would AQ engage in, if scattered across the globe?! My family and millions of others live here; I think protecting them is surely in our interest.
Being in Iraq does not keep AQ from coming to look here though. They are scattered across the globe already and they do have a sanctuary to operate from-(Waziristan), Sudan and pockets within Asia. The course of events in Iraq has no affect on what happens in those other locations. Europe has an ever growing pool of Muslims who are potential terrorists. In other words the supply of terrorists is not finite. And its not soley found in Iraq. Being in Iraq does nothing to make your family safer. Improved law enforcement does. Improved homeland defense does. Fixing immigration does. Improving border security does.
What I continue to object to is defining our whole Middle East policy in terms of Iraq when there are a lot more important actors there whose governments are far more important to the overall interests of the United States than the Sunni and Shias of Iraq. Egypt and Turkey are far more important than Iraq will ever be. So too is Saudi Arabia and the GCC states. 4 years of fighting in Iraq did not stop 74 terrorists from planning to do harm in Saudi Arabia.
To quote a smarter man than me, “I mean, you take what you can get after a while, and what we?
I have to say “Good Point” Skippy-san, on The work being done elsewhere in the Global War on Terrorist’s/Islamic Fascists.
We don’t hear much, if anything at all from those theaters.
Filterman, I must have missed your reply to my previous question.
For clarity’s sake, what was your MOS again?
Skippy,
I never walked away from a basketball game when my team needed me in overtime to help ‘em win. I ain’t gonna this time.
What you are trying to convince these good folks here, again.. for the 1000th time, is that Iraq and by extension the Middle East are not in our national interest. As you simyultaneusly confuse ‘em by going in/out of US politics and the vagaries of Shia, Sunni and Kurd…
OK then, SIR, lets break it down to the bottom-line AND NOT even consider that “old terrorism from Islamo-facist variable” that happened to kill 3000 of our population on 9-11….. I say what about all that oil Skippy? We need, no, the world needs access to that oil.
One more thing- All agree, Iraq is a “shit-magnet” for Al Queda. As a result we kill them there. Isn’t that cost effective from a logistics standpoint? How about the fact that they haven’t attacked us CONUS since 9-11?
b2
B2,
They have not attacked the US since 9-11 not because we are in Iraq-but because they can’t do the things they did on 9-11 e.g. our guard is up. So Europe is held more at risk than the US because its probably easier for them to go there-except the Europeans have disrupted more than a few plots.Again that would have happened whether or not we were in Iraq.
The war in Iraq is the war in Iraq. Its not related to the”war on terrorism” except that there are a number of terrorists who go there because that is where the Americans are. However if the Iraq war ended tomorrow and the Iraqis actually got their stuff together and behaved like decent people-the threat from terrorism would still be there. It will be here 10 years hence-until the Muslims get rid of their stupid religion and assimilate into a real society. There are still terrorists in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. An American was murdered in the PI 14 days ago-in Luzon no less. The PI government is struggling against them with our help. That has nothing to do with what whether we are in Iraq. It has everything to do with Islam though. The keys to controlling Islam are not in Iraq.
What about the oil? A nation does not have to be a democracy to be a trading partner. Iraq needs the money and we need the oil. They will sell it-as will Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Kazakistan etc etc etc. Problem is not matter what happens, demand is going up because 2 economies are around now that were not 20 years ago-India and China. Japan already uses a lot-so does the rest of Asia. So like it or not we are going to have to compete with them for what we want. And over time the supply will continue to go down so it will get even more competitive.
I did not bring up US politics-someone else did. I just simply took the bait because I cannot resist it.
[...] ?Ǭ