Debating policy is supporting the troops

"neo-conservative agenda in Iraq has not worked"

OK, I'll go along as far as this goes, but consider what the troops in harms way are doing: Fighting a buch of terrorists that use booby traps to kill Americans and others, and terror to maintain their grip on those areas in which they have a foothold. At the same time they are doing this, the troops are also rebuilding a nation's infrastructure from the bombed out ground up. Difficult at best.

But what is the problem? Rumsfeld and JCS are trying to fight a war with minimum damage and casualties for a number of reasons, the top two being the following (IMO):
1: Natural reverence of Americans for unnecessary casualties;
2: The presence of the 24-hour news media.

Options from here:
1) Take the gloves off and flatten Baghdad, al Anbar, and anywhere else the terrorist proponents happen to be regardless of collateral damage to historical buildings or civilians;
2) Take the current plan of "Clear, Hold, leave" and dispense with the Leave part of the operation (essentially what is now proposed);
3) The option of the Left: Leave Iraq to its fate.

I happen to think that option 1 while best is politically unacceptable in the modern world, 3 is unacceptable for similar reasons despite what Mr. Edwards or others may say (including the Supreme Anointed One, Rep Murtha, or Tsarina Nancy). That leaves option 2.

We can debate whether we should have gone in there in the first place, but the fact is we are there NOW. Lets WIN and come home.

And yes, I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan multiple times already and will likely return to either or both within the next few months.

A SSGT USAF (Ret)

Should read more carefully next time. I had initially thought you were opposed to the war as a whole and not just to the current plan...not that it matters either way, my general point still remains:

We are in Iraq NOW, lets WIN THIS and come home...

[This comment was originally under "Misused Quotes." I moved it to keep in the topic thread since it seemed to be more appropriate under this post.]
===========================================
Catmman writes: Saturday, February, 10, 2007 6:45 PM

Supporting the troops means winning

Debate is something which should be encouraged and I agree wholeheartedly with it.

However, the tone of that debate is what bothers me. We cannot win, stabilize the middle east or do anything else positive in the region if we leave.

Diplomacy hasn't worked. Minimal use of force hasn't worked. Sanctions never work.

I will agree that there have been mistakes made over the past few years in raletion to how this war has been fought. But I can't help but wonder how the outcome might have been different if thoase which have done nothing but harangue and demegogue this issue had come on board and at least presented to EVERYONE a united front.

There was political disention during WWII, but we managed to work through it and focus on the task at hand, winning.

Soldiers look to their leaders for support. This does not only mean the President. Soldiers, by extension, enforce political policy just as they have done from the beginning.

When they see dissention at the levels the Presidents detractors show, they are affected negatively.

It affects their morale and shows disrespect for their mission. A soldier doesn't care about politics. He cares about winning.

I have been in the military for twenty years - since Reagan. We have been working with less and have been stretched to the limit since the early 90's. At no time did I ever hear any of todays retractors stand up "for the troops" as I do today.

Why not? Our missions only increased. Turn after turn we were attacked and servicemen were killed. No outcry then?

When I hear "support for the troops" today, in almost every case it is being used as a shield for those crticising policy, the mission, and the CIC.

I want unity of effort, FROM EVERYONE and I want to win this fight.

Political ideology won't mean squat if we don't win. Global warming, minimum wage increases, and social security won't mean squat. Sacrifices made won't mean squat and it won't mean squat who is in control of congress or the WH.

Hillary did a good job of appearing to support the war and thinking she could not be blamed for anything going wrong. As for WMD'S, all not finding any means is we have not found any........yet. I am extremely concerned where the WMD'S were taken. I pray they have not already crossed our purposely porous borders, and I blame that on the current, as well as former administrations, in which Hillary had a direct hand. And another thing, a WMD that could take out San Antonio is no larger than a Mason Jar, full of biotoxin that WAS being produced in Iraq, attached to a pipe bomb, so don't say if there were any WMD'S, they would have been found. Well, you could, but it would take a lot to convince me.

What if I told you it really doesn’t matter? I have never accused Saddam of being a good guy. I have merely been against the methods in taking him down. It hasn’t helped, and has made it worse. If there were or were not WMD, or if they have been smuggled out of Iraq or not is a mute question. If they have been smuggled out and indeed, are in this country—a surge in Iraq will not protect you.

No one is calling for giving up. No one is calling for surrender from the Actual Terrorist. We are calling for better sense in our policy. A coherent strategy and a more moderate plan will have a better chance of success. We have not failed- yet. But to continue with brute force without diplomacy in the entire Middle East can only make matters worse. One more surge in Iraq brings you no security here and it degrades the chances of success there.

A change in course is necessary. Irrational claims about Hillary Clinton will not protect you either. Like it or not, she is in a position of power in this Country. She is running for president. So are many others. It would do us all good to lay down arms and listen to what they actually say and not surround it in conspiracy theory. The strategy Hillary laid out in that speech, the methods of how to move forward, are more in tune with my own thinking. Like it or not, it represents of lot of people in this county and we are not the enemy. But through division the enemy will win.

Bush had his chance; he distracted us from the real War on Terror, left Afghanistan in chaos, brought us to Iraq under questionable intelligence, and destabilized the Middle East. It is time to listen to someone else.

Sorry, first paragraph: should have been moot. Not a mute question. I was just corrected on the proper use of 'mute' the other day- guess it stuck on the brain.