No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.

The war is unpopular because it was launched on lies and lead with a breath (and life) taking incompetence. There is very little to be happy about, Saddam dead vs. a civil war that has killed thousands and will kill thousands more is hardly a fair exchange.

The fact that the war is only slightly more popular with the military than the average American makes perfect sense. This Clintonesque parsing is both funny and sad.

HUGH HEWITT IS ENCOURAGING PEOPLE to pledge not to support any Republican Senator who votes to oppose the surge. There's a pledge website here.
http://truthlaidbear.com/thenrscpledge/

The pledge reads:

If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution.

It will be interesting to see if this makes an impact. This is the sort of grassroots pressure that Democrats have been feeling for a while, but it's new to Republicans. I think that Hugh's right to start this drive. Opposition to the surge is wrong (see what Petraeus said) and it's also political suicide for the Republicans.

What Petraeus said is here:
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/milblogs/2007/01/24/#007645

The Pledge is here:
http://truthlaidbear.com/thenrscpledge/

Greyhawk,
Well done as always. Funny how so much press coverage is ignoring the changes in ROE and what the "surge" really means. You'd think that they would at least want to take credit for forcing W to take a new approach...
Lisa

No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.

The war is unpopular because it was launched on lies and lead with a breath (and life) taking incompetence. There is very little to be happy about, Saddam dead vs. a civil war that has killed thousands and will kill thousands more is hardly a fair exchange.

The fact that the war is only slightly more popular with the military than the average American makes perfect sense. This Clintonesque parsing is both funny and sad.

Posted by salvage at January 25, 2007 02:02 PM

Yep, no matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.

The war is unpopular because it was not fought to win overwhelmingly and with determination from the start. It was fought with the only assets we had on hand because what we truly needed to win overwhelmingly and with dispatch had been sent home in the previous 10 years. So it was fought with what we had because the American public was not asked to provide more, and the Dhimmicratic party insisted on making the case that there was no need for more support because it was an illegla and immoral war to start with.

The American public does not want a loss in Iraq. They want a Win. No one knows exactly how to do that. There are several different plans to do so out there. None of the plans which advocate retreat intends to win in Iraq.

The only incompetence in evidence, is that opined by so called military supporters who would rather withdraw the troops, put them in a black box on the shelf, and never use them until the situation is so dire that even their use would not be enough to save the country from nuclear holocaust. When you believe that everything the military does is destroy and kill indiscriminately, then you will only use them if you want to destroy and kill indiscriminately.

However, if you believe military force can be wielded to achieve safety and security against Evil and tyrannous regimes, then you use it when it MUST be used, and you don't wait until millions of deaths must be the cost of waiting for the perfect war.

There is very little to be unhappy about. Saddam is dead. The Mahdi Army is being reduced. The Maliki government is being forced to speak straighter. The liberals in the world are being forced to choose between supporting the most open and free regimes of the world or supporting the most tyrannous because they are too cowardly to fight the tyranny. And we are taking casualties of the bravest souls of our country, but in the smallest numbers possible to actually win without using overwhelming force.

Failing to control a civil war in Iraq that has killed thousands and would kill millions more if uncontrolled and unopposed is hardly a fair exchange for the lives of millions and maybe billions of lives in the near future if Radical Islam is allowed to conquer the Middle East, Europe, Asia, and eventually North America. Because the response to a nuclear explosion from terroists in America will most assuredly result in the deaths of BILLIONs of Muslims and non Muslims in the world today.

The fact that the war is characterized by liberals and Dhimmicrats as only slightly less popular than living in a burkha, refusing Women the right to choose husbands, have sex with only those their father's wish, show skin at the beach, drive a car, have a job, or exist as equals to Men makes perfect sense to the average Liberal and the average Muslim. This Clintonesque parsing is both funny and sad coming from folks who used to claim their only agenda was Justice for All. Pro-Choice for all. Free food, medicine, and health care for all. It depends on what the meaning of "is" is. It depends on what the meaning of "death" is.

Feel free to support that which is saving your worthless life. Or die at the hands of your enemies.

Subsunk

>The war is unpopular because it was not fought to win overwhelmingly and with determination from the start.

And that's where I stopped reading because I suspect what follows was just as silly.

Shock'n'awe was what then? The curb stomping of Saddam's army was not overwhelming?

Please don’t answer; they’re rhetorical questions to illustrate just how contradictory you are with the facts and simple cause and effect. All you’re doing is spewing more “successful catastrophe” nonsense.

Iraq was a mistake; the invasion was not necessary and has created more problems than solved. If at this point you cannot see that then there is no hope you ever will.

'The only incompetence in evidence, is that opined by so called military supporters who would rather withdraw the troops, put them in a black box on the shelf, and never use them until the situation is so dire that even their use would not be enough to save the country from nuclear holocaust.'

Very well stated Subsunk, but what I think you were referring to was a 'lock box' not a 'black box' :-)

Check out Salvage's site- a kook in the first degree.

Thanks for helping to add credence to my theory that the rest of the post was indeed silly.

That excerpt is what we call a “strawman”, which is presenting a daft opinion as your opponent’s and then knocking it down. Can anyone provide me with anyone who actually says such a thing? That the military should only be used by time it’s too late? If you can than I will cheerfully agree that it’s a very stupid idea.

I think that actual point being distorted here is that the military should not be used for a campaign whose only goal is regime change. In fact that’s part of international law to which the United States of America agreed to many years ago. This is why the Bush Administration chose WMD as the main motivation for the war. If actual WMD had been found even I would have supported the invasion.

Oh dear gawd, please do not bring up those rusted out shells, even the Pentagon made it very clear that those were not the WMD that they were looking for.

And what nuclear holocaust is he talking about? I’m closer to have a nuclear arsenal than Saddam was and only because I live in a country that has an actual nuclear power plants. See that’s a prerequisite to being able to make nuclear weapons, Saddam may have wanted them but wanting and having are two different things.

North Korea on the other hand does have nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them against America. Yet Kim goes unhung.

Huh. Wonder why that is?

Oh and please by all means, check out my site and tell me how kooky it is.

Either way, the war is more unpopular today than it was last week, last month, and last year. The further along we go, the more the numbers shift toward the anti-war side. If nothing changes in 6-9 months, you will even see the majority of Republicans in Congress side with the anti-war left.

If you really want to argue the justification for starting the war, I personally don't think you need to go any further than the fact that Saddam was in violation of the 1991 cease fire, and had been for years.

The 1991 cease fire required Iraq to a) disclose all stockpiles of WMDs and any WMD development programs; and b) allow verification of destruction/deactivation of those stockpiles and programs.

If the amounts of WMDs they stated they possessed in 1991 were accurate, they the amount that could be verfied as destroyed wasn't the full amount. When one party to a cease fire agreement violates the agreement, the other side is justified in resuming hostilities.

Then there is the issue of the Iraqi's consistent firing on Coalition aircraft enforcing the UN-mandated No Fly zones. That is, last I checked, an act of war.

And finally, we know that Saddam was harboring terrorists, some of whom were members of al Qaeda, an organization which declared war in the US in, IIRC, 1996 or so, who had fled Afghanistan. One of those was al Zarqawi, who fled Af'stan when wounded there, received medical care in Iraq (with Saddam's consent, if not outright support) and who never left.

Any one of those three items by itself would have been sufficient casus belli

Oh, and those 8 Army troops who claimed 4 trips to Iraq may have been Rangers or other SOCOM types. Rangers, IIRC, go for 90 days at a time.

Ah yes, the UN. It's amazing how much respect it gets from y'all when it comes to Iraq.

So. You will demand that Israel complies with the various UN resolutions she ignores? America too?

Cricket Cricket

And let's say for a second that you are consistent in your respect for UN laws. Looks at the mess that Iraq is in, really worth it?

Okay, salvage, if you want to take the no-fly zones out of the equation, HL's comment still lists other items.

You ignored them in your response... do you then cede those arguments as justification?

"The fact that the war is only slightly more popular with the military than the average American makes perfect sense."

Interesting choice of terminology. You'll never hear a GI use "popular" as a frame of reference for any war. It's more apt a term for High School Prom Queen elections or the Billboard Hot 100. I can see where folks who hoped Iraq would be something like a 1-hour TV series episode would reference it's "popularity", but I've never met a GI who'd declare a war popular.

Salvage would never approve of anything an American does. He is posting from CAIR and supporting the terrorists or he has already flipped into the insanity stage as a result of BDS.
I pity people who are helping to set up the death of millions of Americans including their own families and claim to be an American. It takes considerably more than living in this country to be a loyal American. You have proven you are not an American and definetly not loyal to the country. He actually sounds just like the known traitor Lee from other blogs. If not you had better check your DNA, you have the same daddy.

Malclave I tried to address the rest with

Looks at the mess that Iraq is in, really worth it?

But I guess I wasn’t clear, my apologies, I will be less opaque.

Look at Iraq, look at the big pile of bodies, look how much Iran has gotten out of the invasion, look at how stuck America is. Think about how the invasion has destabilized the region. Look at how much more terrorism and terrorists there are.

Then look at those reasons for the invasion again.

The cost / benefit ratio is far too out of whack to come to any other conclusion then the invasion was simply not worth it. Yes Saddam is dead and that is a good thing but the cost has been too high.

Greyhawk –

More hysterical parsing, you could teach Clinton a thing or two. The “popularity” of the war is a direct reflection of morale which, if I understand correctly, is a vital factor in an army. This war is not popular, that is the majority does not support it. What word would you use if that one doesn’t suit?

Scrapiron –

Yes I have no American DNA, tell me Sparky, what tribe are you? Mohawk? Iroquois? What’s your Indian name? Dribbles Out of Mouth? Reads Slowly? Dances with Self?

How very odd that I was fully in favor of the Afghanistan mission, in fact one of the many reasons why I opposed the Iraq invasion was because Afghanistan wasn’t finished. Still isn’t, did you know that in some areas the Taliban are opening schools? They helped murder 3,000 Americans, you may have seen it on the news you being so concerned with that sort of thing and all. But I’m the traitor for wanting to see that mission finished.

Hey let’s play a game, let’s say it was President Gore who let bin Laden get away… I wonder would Greyhawk have a little counter on his site counting how many days it’s been since President Gore said “Dead or Alive”? It’s fascinating how little outrage bin Laden’s continued breathing draws from y’all. Who has killed more Americans? Bin Laden or Saddam? Why is one still alive and the other dead?

But I guess when faced with reality all you can do is jump up and down gibbering about traitors. Shows how much truth you can handle; very little to none at all.

You gentlemen really need to separate your egos from the situation; your continued support of a failed war and a failed president is borderline psychotic.

Salvage --
Israel isn't ignoring any mandatory security council resolutions. Iraq was. It isn't anymore, though. Period. Full stop.

mandatory security council resolutions.

Gosh I wonder why there aren't any of those kinds of resolutions against Israel? But there are many that aren't from teh security council aren't there? So the UN only counts when America vetos.

>Iraq was. It isn't anymore.

No, that's true, so thousands and thousands dead, more terrorists and terrorism, billions spent and a civil war that could blow up into a full on genocide was worth enforcing resolutions against a country that wasn't close to a threat?

Cost. Benefit. Ratio. Is this an alien concept to you?

Everything you have said, Salvage, is a matter of perspective.
Yours- is irrepairably skewed.

"The war is unpopular because it was launched on lies and lead with a breath (and life) taking incompetence.

SALAVAGE

I really love it when confused looney liberals use this logic to just up and leave Iraq to the terrorists and Iran. I'm guessing he's talking about the intelligence about WMD which led to the conflict we are in now? They seem to forget that Iraq broke the original cease-fire agreement from the first Gulf War, but why let facts get in the way of their arguement?
President Bush must be the sneakiest, diabolical President ever to hold the seat. Not only was he able to manipulate President Clinton's intel on WMD's in the 90's, he was all powerful that he could wave a wand and influence other nations intelligence, even the French. I'll give $100 to anyone that could find any respected Intelligence Agency around the world back in 2002 that could say 100% that Iraq didn't have an active WMD program along with WMD's. The simple fact is that if Saddam wasn't playing cat & mouse games with the Inspectors he probably would still have his country.
So let's all think this thru, President Bush knew he was lying about WMD intelligence and decided to launch this "illegal war". So if he knew was lying, he couldn't take the chance that Iraq didn't have them. Which begs the question "If he knew he was lying, why not cook up some WMD and put it in Iraq?"
Where are the FDR and Truman liberals when we need them? The fact is that the gloves need to come off and we need to win this regional war.

>Everything you have said, Salvage, is a matter of perspective.
Yours- is irrepairably skewed.

No, not really.

>I really love it when confused looney liberals use this logic to just up and leave Iraq to the terrorists and Iran.

Say Chuckles, did the terrorists and Iran have Iraq before? Guess invading, not such a good idea in the War on Terror.

>I'm guessing he's talking about the intelligence about WMD which led to the conflict we are in now? They seem to forget that Iraq broke the original cease-fire agreement from the first Gulf War, but why let facts get in the way of their arguement?

It’s weird how none of you true believers will answer my questions. I’ll try again.

Was the Iraq invasion worth it?

What goals have been achieved?

Has it made more or less problems in the region?

You seem to think any reason is a good enough reason for war. Does that make sense to you?

>President Bush must be the sneakiest, diabolical President ever to hold the seat. Not only was he able to manipulate President Clinton's intel on WMD's in the 90's, he was all powerful that he could wave a wand and influence other nations intelligence, even the French.

Ah wingnut boilerplate #34: Clinton said so!

It’s so cute how the UN and Clinton’s stature rise in your eyes when it comes to Iraq.

Say, did Clinton invade? No? So who gives a flying doughnut what he, the French or anyone else said? Words. Actions. Different.

I'll give $100 to anyone that could find any respected Intelligence Agency around the world back in 2002 that could say 100% that Iraq didn't have an active WMD program along with WMD's.
I’ll give $100,000,000 to anyone who can find WMD in Iraq. See if they didn’t have WMD now then they didn’t have them in 2002. Funny how that works.

>The simple fact is that if Saddam wasn't playing cat & mouse games with the Inspectors he probably would still have his country.

Uh Bush ordered the inspectors out so he could start bombing.

>So let's all think this thru,

Please.

>President Bush knew he was lying about WMD intelligence and decided to launch this "illegal war". So if he knew was lying, he couldn't take the chance that Iraq didn't have them. Which begs the question "If he knew he was lying, why not cook up some WMD and put it in Iraq?"

Uh…. So what you’re saying is that if Bush was a liar about WMD he would have lied more so since he didn’t lie more he can’t be a liar?

Here’s what happened. Bush, heavily influence by the neocons decided that invading Iraq would be a super cool way to bring peace to the Middle East while whacking a very bad man. Now on the surface that’s a fine plan but anyone familiar with the history and culture of the region would instantly understand just how batshit crazy that would be.

Bush needed a legal reason, regime change, no matter how noble, is in fact illegal under international law that America is a signatory to. WMD was the perfect rationale and if there were actual nuclear weapons, mobile biowepons labs and anthrax laden drones quite legal. Even I would have approved. But anyone with a lick of sense knows that those kinds of weapons are not only difficult to produce they’re hard to produce in secret. It’s even harder when your country is under sanctions, no-fly zones and every intelligence agency in the Western world. Those would be the ones with the satellites and bottomless resources. The idea of a third world crap hole like Iraq building sophisticated weapons is laughable.

But Bush and pals thought that the war would be a cakewalk, that the Iraqis would welcome them with open parades blah blah blah and that no one would notice the little WMD white lie that launched it all. And they would have been right, if Iraq was a peaceful, flourishing democracy Bush would be a great President and no one would care.

So Bush isn’t “evil” he’s incompetent. He had / was talked into a cunning plan that has failed miserably.

>Where are the FDR and Truman liberals when we need them? The fact is that the gloves need to come off and we need to win this regional war.

They’re wondering what the hell you aren’t bothered by the Afghanistan mission being left unfinished.

And another question for you to ignore; how high the pile of bodies and money before Iraq becomes a bad idea? 10,000 coalition troops and 100,000 civilians?

What’s your failure criteria? I bet if it was President Gore you’d have one.

I e-mailed Mr. Hodierne at Military Times, who directed me to the link with a description of how this survey was conducted. Here is the brief summary:

On Nov. 13, we mailed questionnaires to 6,000 people drawn at random from our list of active-duty subscribers. The annual poll has come to be viewed by some as a barometer of the professional career military.

With 954 responses out of 6,000, that is a 16% percent response rate. Even though Military Times tries to elicit a sample representative of the overall military, they can't really do it, because as Mr. Hodierne says in his response to my inquiry:

We know of no independent organization that has regularly polled military personnel. There are many barriers to that (e.g. no publicly available list to draw a random sample from).

Even if the 6000-person sample were representative, a 16% response rate would be considered an inadequate response by any self-respecting polling firm.

In summary: this "poll" is not representative of the US military, and no conclusions whatsoever can be drawn from it.

I notice you don't include the number of respondents who have served in Afghanistan.

If I am reading the results correctly, only 34% of respondents have never deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan.

I understand that the focus of the poll was on Iraq, but there were also questions about Afghanistan and about GWB, among other things. And it seems fair to say Afghanistan vets would have a pretty knowledgeable perspective on the way the war on terror is being fought.

To just say that half the respondents (480) "had never been to Iraq" isn't telling the whole story. It suggests that that half are all desk jockeys someplace.

Re Dr. Goodheart's calcuation of a 16% response rate.

This is what the professionals at Pollster.com have to say about the Military Times poll:

This year they sent out 6,000 surveys and received 1,215 back from those on active duty. However, according to Towbridge, Military Times believes ("based on our circulation department's research") that roughly a third of the subscriber base at any given time is not on active duty. Since the survey aims to reach only those on active duty, we would calculate the response rate by dividing the 1,215 respondents by 4,000 (the best estimate of those on active duty). The results is 30% , a response rate that compares favorably to the mail surveys conducted by the Columbus Dispatch (which are typically in the mid 20s) and most national public telephone surveys (a 2003 study found an average response rate of 23% on 20 national news media telephone surveys, ranging from a low of 5% to a high of 39%, using the AAPOR RR3 formula).

Mystery Pollster

Sorry, here's the link:

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2006/01/the_military_ti.html

And it seems fair to say Afghanistan vets would have a pretty knowledgeable perspective on the way the war on terror is being fought.

Well, Hubs is an Afghanistan Vet (infantry NCO)

He reenlisted while there, has volunteered for an Iraq deployment, wishes politicians would just let him do his job, and during the "majority of the military" comment in the response to the SotU, called James Webb a name that I know Greyhawk wouldn't appreciate me repeating.

Of others in his company, 2 groups have since volunteered for Iraq deployments - one group is currently there, the other will mobilize shortly. Yet another group has volunteered to return to Afghanistan to train the ANA.

Oh, we subscribed to the Army Times - once - and refused to subscribe again - even when they offered a year for free.

Take from that what you will.

I guess I take it that the participation of Afghanistan vets should be accounted for in discussing the poll.

Sorry if this is slightly unrelated, but check out the "support" these Marines received by anti-war protesters in San Diego.

I thank Zuzu for the link to the Mystery Pollster. The link provides far more detail than my quick calculation, and more context about relative reliability compared with other polls.
The summary comment is:
"So, to sum up: The use of the Military Times subscriber list as a sample frame gets us to as close to a random sampling of active duty military personnel as we are likely to get. However, it is best to think of the poll as consistent three year sampling of "the military's professional core" (as the Times' lead puts it) than of all the men and women serving on active duty."

So if response rate is about the same from year to year, it makes it somewhat less likely that a strong surge in opinion on one or the other political side has shown up.

I feel somewhat better about the usefulness of the poll, but only for its use in the most general terms, NOT the ability to say that XX% of the military supports/opposes the surge or whatever.

The poll only indicates what a very small sample of troops think, so it means nothing.

On the other hand, this thread proves that there will never be any agreement on anything to do with Iraq between the left and the right and most of the middle.

And that is the problem.

Until America (the majority of the population and the majority of the legislators) agree that the war in Iraq is only one of the first battles in a very long war and that that war must be won, we as a nation will continue to fall further behind in the war for our survival.

Survival? Very few Americans believe that?

That is the last and most serious problem.

One we may not recover from.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA