The difficulty of extending the surge to September 2007 (when Petraeus would submit his report on progress), much less to the spring of 2008, was underscored by the rhetoric coming from both Republicans and Democrats in Congress. The frequently used line “We support the troops” coupled with “We totally disagree with their mission” cut no ice with people in uniform. Our kids on the front lines were savvy; they would ask me why the politicians didn’t understand that, in the eyes of the troops, support for them and support for their mission were tied together. But the comments that most angered me were those full of defeatism— sending the message to the troops that they couldn’t win and, by implication, were putting their lives on the line for nothing. The worst of these comments came in mid-April from the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, who said in a press conference, “This war is lost” and “The surge is not accomplishing anything.” I was furious and shared privately with some of my staff a quote from Abraham Lincoln I had written down long before: “Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.” Needless to say, I never hinted at any such feelings publicly, but I had them nonetheless.
८ जून, २०१५
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."
Abraham Lincoln, quoted by Secretary of State Robert Gates in "Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War" (p. 60):
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८५ टिप्पण्या:
Bill Gates tag needs to be Bob Gates. Microsoft probably auto corrected it.
Lincoln, everyone's favorite American dictator.
LOL B
True.
And (I'm sure I'll be the 4th person correcting this) Secretary of Defense, not Secretary of State. Bill Clinton was secretary of state.
Public shaming on the internet doesn't work.
If more congressmen threw themselves off overpasses....
The problem is, we really haven't been in a war since the early stages of WW II that, if lost would cause the United States to cease to exist. It's pretty easy to tolerate dissent when the very survival of the nation is not at stake. Hence the actions of Lincoln in the Civil War and of FDR in interring the Japanese at the outbreak of WW II (which, as AA will attest, is STILL "good law" btw).
I once had a phone conversation during his radio call-in show with Ed Schultz (now of MSNBC)during the height of the Iraq war about the powers of the Presidency. I mentioned Lincoln's example to which he replied: "Yes, but that was a 'real' war". LOL Proves my point exactly..
I was surprised when there was not such outrage at Democrats making assisting the terrorists in Iraq part of their strategy to defeat Bush.
I just take it that we have traitors as a normal part of Americal politics, there being no such thing as deep patriotism.
There's always show patriotism, which actually is a negative.
Interestingly, it was the Democrats undercutting the troops in both Lincoln's time and during the Iraq War. In their calculus losing a war is a cheap price to pay to score a couple political points, and all the better if one can stop a Republican from being a winning war president.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2007/02/honest_it_wasnt_abe.html
Too good to be true, it seems.
Criticism of the conduct of a war ought not to be equated with treason. My problem with what Reid and others said during the Iraq war was that they weren't good faith criticisms, but rather were entirely partisan. Whether that was the kind of thing Lincoln was talking about, I don't know.
I'd ask a soldier for his opinion on Reid's comments, but the ones I know are too busy standing in harm's way in defense of our country.
" a quote from Abraham Lincoln I had written down long before"
For some reason that made me suspicious...
As it turns out, however, the quote is phony. Brooks Jackson at FactCheck.org reported that the quote showed up last August and quickly spread over the Internet.
Bill Gates: "I ask not that a country should grieve for me. I ask, rather, what I can grieve for my country."
I know, because I was there. Bill Gates was a boss of mine. You, sir, are no Robert Gates.
The worst of these comments came in mid-April from the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, who said...
Harry Reid has taken a beating in the public eye. The only thing left with him is the hypocrisy of him being so damn wealthy. It used to be that Republicans were called out for sex scandals and Democrats were called out for money scandals. That is no longer the case. Nowadays, extorting former Congressmen for sex scandals with impunity is the accepted, one-sided policy of the party in control of "Justice."
Bobber Fleck said...
I'd ask a soldier for his opinion on Reid's comments, but the ones I know are too busy standing in harm's way in defense of our country.
Will an ex-soldier do?
It as a slimy and scurrilous attack on Bush and the Troops by a slimy and scurrilous scumbag.
He's not a traitor per se, but he should have been run out of town on a rail.
Not all critiques of war efforts are bad. Senator Truman's hearings were good. Critiques of the conduct of the Korean war were generally fair.
Those of my war, Vietnam, not so much.
Critiques that start from the premise that we are making mistake doing X, and we can win by doing Y, generally work for me. They may be wrong, but I listen.
Past tense, not so much...
My favorite Gates (The Good Gates):
“At the Pentagon, top officers fumed at Brennan’s blow-by-blow description of how the SEALs operated; they believed that the former CIA officer had given away operational secrets never shared outside the tribe. (In fact, it appears no real secrets were divulged.) No one was angrier than Mullen himself, who still fumed about that news conference nearly a year later…
“By Wednesday of that week, Gates went to see Donilon, offering up a barbed assessment of how the White House had handled the aftermath of the raid.
“‘I have a new strategic communications approach to recommend,’ Gates said in his trademark droll tones, according to an account later provided by his colleagues.
“What was that, Donilon asked?
“‘Shut the f@*k up,’ the defense secretary said.”
There's a gray area--sure, waving the Viet Cong flag and trying to aid the enemy is treasonous (the latter being actually criminal) but assume a hypothetical war that this country may enter at some time in the future, and you are a congressman who opposes the war and thinks the sooner we end our involvement the better for our troops and our country at large. Should you just keep quiet because anything short of full support for the war might damage morale (or make our enemies get their hopes up)? Where is the line drawn for wanting the war to end sooner rather than later while at the same time not wishing harm on our troops or support for the people trying to kill them?
"Bill Gates tag needs to be Bob Gates. Microsoft probably auto corrected it."
Thanks. Fixed.
Of course Reid et al. were aiding and abetting the enemy.
But even pseudo-Lincoln had to rely on public opinion to sustain charges.
Progs have changed the culture enough to make treason prosecutions implausible.
Hence shameless Dems face neither shame nor fear.
Asking whether the quote is genuine is merely pettifoggery. It is a matter of historical record that Democrats actively worked to undercut Lincoln, and that they became downright desperate to end the war on terms favorable to the Confederacy after Grant's success at Vicksburg and Meade's at Gettysburg, both on the 4th of July in 1863, made it clear the a Union victory was inevitable.
We do know that the quote reflected Lincoln's views. In the case of a young deserter he had pardoned Lincoln is known to have asked “Must I shoot a simple minded soldier boy who deserts while I must not touch a hair of the wily agitator, who induces him to desert? I think that in such a case to silence the agitator and save the boy, is not only constitutional but withal a great mercy.”
Congressmen should be responsible to their constituents, not the president. There is a serious issue with separation of powers if you have the executive leveling charges against a congressman and the judicial branch prosecuting them.
But Reid is such a POS. If we had a decent press, every time Reid said anything against the Iraq War, his initial "I'm for it!" flag waving would have been thrown back in his face. Thank God Reid wasn't a senator during WW2 or we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
In 2002, Congress voted to "authorize" the Iraq War. The Senate was 51-49 Dem, but all Reps (except for Lincoln Chaffee) voted for it, and half the Dems voted for it, including the aspiring Presidential candidates (Kerry, Edwards, Hillary).
So, why did the bigwig Dems vote to support a War that they probably did not support?
Because, politically, they didnt want to be on the wrong side on a war, the US would likely win. Nonetheless, in the 2002 midterms, the Dems lost the Senate anyway.
In 2004, the War was in full swing, the Presidential election was in full swing, and Howard Dean, you might recall, was making big waves in the Dem primary, because he was the only candidate who didnt support the war. The war vote continued to tie Kerry and Edwards all up in knots, even after Dean was drummed out the race. Their war vote inoculated Bush, and allowed Bush to sneak by with a close victory in 2004.
So, the Dem ledger was thus far:
1. Voting yes to a war they didnt believe in.
2. Losing the Senate in 2002.
3. Losing to Bush in 2004.
So, with all this losing, they were obviously pissed. So, what did they do in response? Undermine the entire war effort for political advantage. The failure to find weapons of mass destruction was their much needed ammo to do so.
It basically worked. The Dems won Congress in 2006, won the Presidency in 2008, and gave away Iraq in the process.
As the world turns.
Bay Area Guy said...
and gave away Iraq
It wasn't ours. Was never going to be ours. And, will never be ours.
The problem is, we really haven't been in a war since the early stages of WW II that, if lost would cause the United States to cease to exist. It's pretty easy to tolerate dissent when the very survival of the nation is not at stake. Hence the actions of Lincoln in the Civil War and of FDR in interring the Japanese at the outbreak of WW II (which, as AA will attest, is STILL "good law" btw).
Except we've never been in such a war, save 1776 (at which point Congress as it's known today didn't exist.) Even the Civil War, had it been lost in the most drastic way possible (let's say all CSA states plus Oklahoma and New Mexico territory, Missouri, Kentucky, and for shins and grits, Maryland and DC), the USA would not have 'ceased to exist' and would still have been the premier industrial power in the hemisphere.
Likewise, the industrial difference between the United States and Japan, combined with the fact that a Japanese invasion of the West Coast would have been an atrocious logistical trap even assuming that the bulk of the Japanese fleet and merchant marine wasn't busy in SE Asia... makes it quite clear that short of the Axis powers going nuclear (and being able to deliver), years before the United States, that war was not a danger to our very existence.
Now I note that the quote itself is said to be fake - but that doesn't make its sentiment, and support for that sentiment, very real to certain people. Trying to twist which wars we should jail congressmen is a slippery subject indeed. It is interesting that in the context of accrediting it to Abraham Lincoln, defenders of modern Congressman would argue that it is less acceptable to demand the US army not be used against one's cousins, than to not be used against foreigners.
I opposed the war from the beginning and I will second *almost* all Bay Area Guy's timeline of events, which rightly skewer so many Democratic Senators' cowardly complicity with the invasion of Iraq. They betrayed their constituents egregiously in the process, and therefore deserved the drubbing they got in 2002 and 2004. So Bay Area Guy's account is exactly what happened *except* for his understanding of what it all means. He writes:
"So, what did they do in response? Undermine the entire war effort for political advantage. The failure to find weapons of mass destruction was their much needed ammo to do so."
Here he presents us with a narrative that (very conveniently) forecloses the possibility that war opponents could actually have been right from the beginning! It's a bad faith interpretation.
2 key anti-war arguments were
1)skepticism towards the ubiquitously and intensely disseminated WMD assertions (thus "the failure to find" them didn't provide "much needed ammo," but rather supported the opposition's original skepticism towards the ubiquitously and intensely disseminated WMD assertions)
2)rejection of the idea that following the invasion, the US would simply be able to insert our preferred government and social structure for the nation of Iraq. All jingoistic "purple finger" productions by FNC notwithstanding, we were right about that too. We weren't right because Harry Reid or anyone else said it failed. We were right because it was always a ridiculous thing to expect.
The idea that we "gave away Iraq," as ARM has already noted, presupposes it was ours to begin with. Also a ridiculous presupposition.
The problem with the premise of Bay Area Guy's argument is that it's the rhetorical strategy for urging us to do what we did in Iraq again, either in Iraq or somewhere else. It suggests that the Bill Kristols and the Charles Krauthammers and the John McCains are "foreign policy experts." How about we not repeat the dumb mistake of listening to such people's urgings that we have another adventurist go'round or two?
I have long believed that former Secretary of State Robert Gates is the go-to source for finding out what cuts ice with people in uniform.
Harrogate wrote:
"1)skepticism towards the ubiquitously and intensely disseminated WMD assertions"
Who, prior to March 2003, said that Iraq had no WMD?
Other than disgraced pedophile Scott Ritter.
"I'd ask a soldier for his opinion on Reid's comments, but the ones I know are too busy standing in harm's way in defense of our country."
The are being placed in harms'way, but it's not in defense of our country.
"The are being placed in harms'way, but it's not in defense of our country."
Just like the GI's who died in Pacific and in Europe during WW2.
Robert Cook. The anti-patriot!
The Drill SGT said: He's not a traitor per se, but he should have been run out of town on a rail.
Of course, since we have a media that largely supports the Reid position that could never happen.
For a very long time I have maintained the mainstream media is the real enemy. The Democrats are dupes that hold power only because the media props them up.
"but rather supported the opposition's original skepticism towards the ubiquitously and intensely disseminated WMD assertions)"
What Terry said.
Harrogate wrote:
"'1)skepticism towards the ubiquitously and intensely disseminated WMD assertions'
"Who, prior to March 2003, said that Iraq had no WMD?
Other than disgraced pedophile Scott Ritter."
Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice.
From the linked article:
"Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.
"In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: 'He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.'"
"This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.
"Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of 'containment' that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to 'build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction' for 'the last 10 years'. America, he said, had been successful in keeping him 'in a box'.
"Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. 'Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.'
If you want to see Rice and Powell make these pronouncements, watch Michael Moore's FARENHEIT 9/11, wherein the clips of them making these statements are shown.
@Terry
Do you equate the wars we started in Afghanistan and Iraq with WWII? I don't. I've said here more than once that WWII is the only war we've fought in living memory that was necessary for self-defense.
Then why did George Tenent say that the Iraqi WMD program intel was a "slam dunk"?
We started the war in Afghanistan.
The attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and Flight 93 that murdered 3,000 Americans had nothing to do with it.
Who dresses you in the morning, Cookie?
Another inconvenient look at the actual words of the tyrant Lincoln.
@Jason:
Afghanistan did not send two jetliners into the Twin Towers and another into the Pentagon. A stateless terrorist group did. None of those involved were Afghan nationals. The ruling Taliban government had no involvement. If the rationale was that Afghanistan was where bin Laden and his band of Al Qaeda terrorists were hiding out, why did we stay in Afghanistan after bin Laden and his gang successfully escaped? What are we fighting for in Afghanistan?
"Then why did George Tenent say that the Iraqi WMD program intel was a 'slam dunk'"?
Tenet apparently meant, in that he was speaking to Bush, that convincing America and Congress that Saddam had WMD would be a slam dunk. Given how many Americans believed it, (and many still do), it was a slam dunk. That doesn't mean it wasn't also a lie.
"Tenet apparently meant, in that he was speaking to Bush, that convincing America and Congress that Saddam had WMD would be a slam dunk."
Whatever you say, Robert.
"... Tenet apparently meant,..."
Were you born with the ability to read minds, or was it a talent you developed through arcane rituals?
Oh yeah, I know Tenent said that since he considered himself to be scapegoated. Nice try for a recovery. But he also said he believed Iraq had WMD....
"There is no way to peace. Peace is the way."........This homily is simply not true. The Bolsheviks made peace with Germany and ended their involvement in WWI. The subsequent civil war caused far more casualties than their previous engagement and, for bonus misery points, the casualties were now women and children in addition to young men......You can argue counterfactuals forever, but, as a general rule, I would claim that the victors always fare better than the losers in an armed conflict.
"It wasn't ours. Was never going to be ours. And, will never be ours."
Neither are Japan, Germany, S, Korea, Kosovo,& etc. What's your point?
Robert Cook said...
@Jason:
Afghanistan did not send two jetliners into the Twin Towers and another into the Pentagon.
French Algeria didn't bomb Pearl Harbor.
Libtard: Afghanistan did not send two jetliners into the Twin Towers and another into the Pentagon.
And Cerci didn't have Loras and Margery arrested...
Coupe: Something tells me that your old Indian friend doesn't know what logistics it takes to transport and sustain a mechanized division or corps in a desert in someone else's country.
Because that wasn't a desert, and we didn't use a mech corps and we didn't have to because it wasn't defended by a modern mechanized enemy. Fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan is not the same as fighting the Republic Guard and Iraqi tank divisions in Southern Iraq.
Holy shit, dude, this is stupid on stilts. The fucking French Resistance didn't drive the Nazis out of France. Bradley and Montgomery did, with combined infantry, armor, artillery and air. And a huge logistical tail.
Bravo Two-Zero didn't win the first Iraq War. Schartzkopf and the U.S. and Saudi armored and mech divisions did when they flanked the Iraqi army and forced their withdrawal.
Just because unconventional forces were successful in one spot doesn't mean you can apply that everywhere.
Remember when the Partisans overran Berlin?
Oh, wait. That was the main force of the Red Army. NEVERMIND.
Jason said...The fucking French Resistance didn't drive the Nazis out of France. Bradley and Montgomery did, with combined infantry, armor, artillery and air. And a huge logistical tail.
There is a small window of opportunity. If you wait for the enemy to conquer your country before you decide to fight, you are going to have a bad day.
When France invaded Germany in 1923, they should have neutralized the growing war machine. After 1933, the French were finished, and surrender was the only option.
Great Britain knew that declaring war on Germany, was the only way to get the USA into the war. They would be an island like Cyprus today, if the USA didn't build a war based economy to serve the British.
Jason said...Bravo Two-Zero didn't win the first Iraq War. Schartzkopf and the U.S. and Saudi armored and mech divisions did when they flanked the Iraqi army and forced their withdrawal.
The Kuwait war was fought to a stalemate. The Iraqis and Coalition forces were forced to retreat back to their starting lines after a few 10's of hours.
Schwarzkopf went to France, got his Chevalier, and then to Britain to get his Knighthood, and then on to retirement and parades back home.
Meanwhile, his Army sat in the desert for another 10 years as the logistics pipeline (defense corporations) kept the material flowing until everyone got tired and ended the stalemate in another war.
Alas, instead of declaring a Monarchy, the USA installed another dictator.
Film at 11...
Saddam Hussein's army was destroyed and he was kicked out of Kuwait. Every war aim of the coalition was achieved.
This you call a "stalemate."
The "Highway of Death"a stalemate.
Talk about "stuck on stupid."
Life is lived forward and understood backward. Prussia's easy victory in the Franco-Prussian war led to their overestimation of their chances of victory over France in WWI. Hitler's quick victory over the French in WWII led the Germans and the German general staff to over estimate their chance of success in the Soviet Union where they had prevailed in WWI. A too easy victory leads to hubris. That said, it is still better to win than to lose a war........Our easy victory in our very first engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan led to unrealistic evaluations of our chances of future success in those theaters. But just because a victory is hard come by does not mean that it is not worth achieving.
RE: Jason at 2:09 PM
To quote Tacitus:
"To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace."
In our case, "they call it victory," though it's hardly that. Just the American compulsion to call ourselves winners in everything we undertake.
Were the Iraqis removed from Kuwait, or not, dumbass?
Jason said...Every war aim of the coalition was achieved.
"We won every battle." Col Summers
"Irrelevant, we won the war." General Giáp
So, is Kuwait now an Iraqi province? Or are you doubling down on your obtuseness?
Jason said...Were the Iraqis removed from Kuwait, or not?
If the Allied powers removed German forces to their own borders, do you think that would have solved the problem?
Show me where merely dislodging German forces back into Germany, versus outright removal of the Nazi regime, was ever the stated war aim of the Allied Powers.
What should we do with a Federal elected official who aids those waging war (Jihad) against the United States.
How did the Huns describe their victory over Rome?
why would you want to insert half a million soldiers, and a huge air force to merely move the enemy 300 miles north?
Because the Saudis were providing the logistical base of operations. It was their turf, and the Saudis would not abide an aggressive war to dislodge Saddam in 1991. Further, grownups know you can't just wave a magic wand and shit logistics.
William said...How did the Huns describe their victory over Rome?
Ha, no one even knows what language they spoke. All that is known is that they defined the word 'savages'.
The full story of Harry Reid has yet to be written and exposed, but when it is, he will be deservedly among the most publicly despised characters in American history.
"you are a congressman who opposes the war and thinks the sooner we end our involvement the better for our troops and our country at large. Should you just keep quiet because anything short of full support for the war might damage morale "
Lincoln openly opposed the Mexican War.
"If the special forces and the Northern Alliance routed the enemy back to Pakistan, why on Earth would you introduce a large Army?
It was at that point the war was lost."
I have to agree here. Read "Jawbreaker." When the Big Army arrived in Afghanistan, the first thing the generals said was "Get those SF slobs out of that costume and tell them to shave and get into uniform.
Bingo. It turned to shit shortly after. Read Dakota Meyer's book about trying to get arty when they were ambushed. It's like a woman being raped calling the cops. An hour later...
The lefties, like framer and Cook, use false versions of Iraq to try to discredit the war. We all know that. It's not the truth.
I tried to respond elsewhere. It went like this.
farmer, not framer.
So Gates is another Republican who doesn't know the difference between speech and acts, either. How shocking.
Coupe: "The Kuwait war was fought to a stalemate. The Iraqis and Coalition forces were forced to retreat back to their starting lines after a few 10's of hours."
LOL
Note to self: it is quite safe to ignore any tactical or strategic military pronouncements by Coupe.
Cookie: "Tenet apparently meant, in that he was speaking to Bush...."
LOL
At least cookie doesn't have W hopping an SR-71 to Baghdad for secret negotiations with Saddam.
Of course, the thread is still relatively young.
Remember an hour and a half ago when the usual dumbasses were saying Bush went in with not enough troops? And how Paul Wolfowitz was oh-so-terrible when he second-guessed the sainted Eric Shinseki's statement that we would need 400,000 troops on the ground. As if we didn't have a CENTCOM commander whose chain of command goes right to the Secretaries and the National Command Authority (it didn't go through Shinseki). Where they thought these 400,000 people would come from I have no idea and neither do they.
Now Bush sent too many.
Christ, these people are stupid.
Coupe wrote:
"Ha, no one even knows what language they spoke."
Wasn't it Old Gothic?
Robert Cook wrote:
"Do you equate the wars we started in Afghanistan and Iraq with WWII?"
No. We did not fight in Afghanistan in WW2. The inability to make measured, fine distinctions between concepts is a hallmark of the weak minded. Viz: "You're like Hitler!" "What do you mean? I'm not a vegetarian, and I was born in New Jersey, not Austria!"
Terry said...Wasn't it Old Gothic?
They say Gothic was spoken by a large percentage of them, but the Germanic tribes were only one of their many ethnic groups.
I think there are still many doctorate degrees being given to researchers of the Huns. People still make a good living researching their history.
Coupe: "Good advice. Go kiss Mommy goodnight"
Thanks Field Marshall.
Your stirring accounts of the Iraqi army's near "Defense of Stalingrad"-like iron will forcing the allied coalition into a "stalemate" during the liberation of Kuwait will certainly make it difficult to sleep tonight!
Those of us who were there and participated can only marvel at your peculiar "insights" into the precise meaning of military "stalemate".
Do go on. It's positively fascinating.
A stalemate is when two opposing forces can no longer command the will or materiel to carry on the fight. Such was not the case in Iraq 1.
So. What was the rationale for leaving Saddam in power?
Rout comes to mind
Heh.
Whatever, Coupe. Keep on smoking whatever it is you're smoking.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा