Why is keeping our troops in harm's way supporting the troops?

[aps]

Someone enlighten me.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Don't question my bumper sticker patriotism!

 

[oldreliable67]

Hugh Hewitt reprints an email from LTC Mark in Baghdad:

The war is going better. Don't let the news media convince you that we are losing. The new strategy will take a while to be successful. There are some favorable signs now but they are still superficial. The enemy is definitely pushing back and trying to make it look as if we cannot control the city or this country. However they are increasingly attacking soft targets. Their attacks on the Coalition are down and they cannot stop the increase US force in Baghdad and the expansion in the Iraqi military. The sectarian murder rate is already down and while attacks are up the effectiveness is down. The terrorists are getting some spectacular attacks but again they are hitting the softest of targets and as of now are trying to incorporate chlorine gas canisters into their explosions. We are increasingly finding the IEDs and the weapons caches. Remember that we are just beginning the process and we still have only 50% of the troop increase. This is not an operation that gives instant gratification or quick results it will take time. We must have that time for success.
I hear that this war has lasted longer then WWII but if you consider the after effects of WWII and the operations that occurred after the fighting in WWII we were engaged in Europe and Japan for another 10 years as occupiers and re-builders and then for another 30 years as defenders of the new democracies in both those areas. The cost was untold billions of dollars and thousands of lives. Yet we persevered and with a lot less to lose if we had just left Japan and Germany to their fates without our continued sacrifice. And just what would we lose now if we just pulled out of Iraq. I could write a book about that, but the short explanation is we lose our prestige in the middle east and probably in other parts of the world. We lose our entire position in the middle east. Iran gains the upper hand and becomes the regional power that they cannot be if we are successful in Iraq. But most of all we open ourselves to further terrorist attacks in the US as the terrorists become embolden by their success in Iraq. Do not be deceived if we depart leaving Iraq in turmoil or with terrorism intact they will spin that in to a great victory over the "Great Satan" and that will swell their ranks and their war chests and they will come after us in the US. Any plan that puts a time limit on our withdrawal as opposed to placing an end-state condition is a defeat. We will go home in defeat and we will then be fighting the war at home. We cannot afford to lose here.

This is where the war is and where we are fighting, lets finish it here.

Compare LTC Mark's beliefs with the attitudes of the Murtha's et al.

 

[oldreliable67]

This report from the Telegraph is perhaps more appropriate to the "Media Bias" forum, but it also serves to illustrate the lack of support for the troops from a major media entity:

Amid the deaths and the grim daily struggle bravely borne by Britain's forces in southern Iraq, one tale of heroism stands out.

Private Johnson Beharry's courage in rescuing an ambushed foot patrol then, in a second act, saving his vehicle's crew despite his own terrible injuries earned him a Victoria Cross.

For the BBC, however, his story is "too positive" about the conflict.

The corporation has cancelled the commission for a 90-minute drama about Britain's youngest surviving Victoria Cross hero because it feared it would alienate members of the audience opposed to the war in Iraq.
[...]
Pte Beharry, 27, who was awarded the VC in March 2005, was the first person to receive the country's highest award for valour since 1982 and the first living recipient since 1965. He was honoured for two acts of outstanding gallantry which occurred just over a month apart while he was serving with the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment, in the Iraqi town of al-Amarah, in 2004.

 

[oldreliable67]

A reader has forwarded to Powerline a message from Marine Sergeant Baker Brooks, who is about to be deployed to Iraq and wants to make his feelings known:

To My Family & Friends,

As some of you know my Marine Corps Reserve unit will soon be re-activated to fight in Iraq. I won’t give details as to our timeline, destinations, or missions as they will change daily and operational security is paramount.

Regardless, I will be leaving soon. And the question that I have been asked the most is "How do you feel about going back to Iraq?" Well... I’ve told them how I feel and now, if you could spare a minute, I would like to tell you how I feel. To answer the question shortly - I want to go back. In fact, I feel that I need to return to the fight.

Why? Why would I want to go back to a war that is not producing results, costing billions, and killing my brothers on a daily basis? Why would I want to go to a war where I have little to gain and everything to lose? Why? Because it is the right war to fight.

The American public has lost sight of the true war that we are fighting. Iraq has become a convenient distraction from the true fight. What war am I talking about? It is the war that radical Islam has waged against the rest of the world. It is the same war that has been overshadowed by the catchphrase -- “The War in Iraq”. W

Well, “The War in Iraq” is not a catchphrase and it isn’t the war itself, it's a battlefield, like Afghanistan, where we get a chance to spill the blood of our enemy. And unlike any war in the past there are no boundaries and there will be no end. No end until Jesus returns in fulfillment of his prophecy. My son and his children will be dealing with this fight as the enemy will never change their ideological stance much like we will never change ours. This war will wage as the Fringe Elements of Islam continue to exist.

Many people believe that being in Iraq has little bearing on the war on terror and winning is no longer an option. Yet even if we have no chance of winning we must have the moral strength and courage to continue to fight.

Through our operations we have tilled up the Iraqi society and our departure would only allow the enemy to embed themselves deeply within the social fabric. Left unchecked this situation would produce a state that is evil, radical, and anti American. This would be a Jihad Victory. Because of this we must be victorious.

I say that it is the “Right war to Fight” and I mean it with every fiber of my being. America is in this fight now. Much like Israel is locked in war, we are now locked in war. It may be slow and protracted but it will remain.

You may be thinking that this is not the case and that the attacks on American soil were a fluke. I say to you that you are lying to yourself and are in for a rude awakening. Not only are you in for a rude awakening but your self deception will cost our nation dearly in mindset and readiness. You have become tired of fighting. But how can anyone become tired of fighting the right fight? Much like in a foot race you will begin to tire and hurt. You will begin to focus on what is happening to you now. You have lost sight of the goal as you focus on yourself. And the pain that consumes you now has killed your aspirations of winning. You will only be able to win when you keep your eyes on the end goal and you see past the now. But unfortunately our eyes, via the news, have been focused on the now far too long.

Where have the enemies of our country come from? The answer is Radical Islam. The only thing that I can equate Radical Islam to is a gang. In a land where there is little to offer in terms of education, jobs, and class advancement the idle public will begin to look for affiliation. They find that affiliation in their religion. Similar to a gang, Fundamental Islam provides a sense of belonging which translates to influence and through that affiliation and influence the members execute the will of the organization.

Another variable in this complex equation is the stance and objective of our own government. Much like the issue of social security this problem will remain critical yet unresolved. Social security has been identified as flawed. Yet action, or better yet the decision to act, seems impossible to attain due to partisan goals. The issue of Social security is indicative of our government’s all talk and no act nature. Like Social Security this conflict will not die. And like Social Security it will not be dealt with. Leaving Iraq will no more fix our problems than ignoring Social Security and hoping that it rights itself. How bout we shoot for simple political victories now and leave the tough issues for future generations to deal with? That sounds more like cowardice than a plan. You can dress it up hundreds of different ways but at the end of the day we will be left with one of two outcomes, victory or defeat.

One comment that I receive a lot is “Man, we need to just bomb every Muslim and get it over with.” I couldn’t disagree, and be more disappointed with that statement more. This situation is so much more complex than that and to offer such a suggestion is counterproductive. The enemy that we are fighting is radical, much like a cult. David Koresh and Jim Jones perverted and twisted the word of Jesus Christ as do these individuals manipulate the words of Muhammad for their own demented gains. I consider all leaders and organizations that operate in this fashion to be my enemies. But the remaining 99 percent of Muslims are decent people and do not deserve to be grouped together with their fringe counterparts.

One phrase that has stuck with me and rings true is the simplest I’ve heard: “If they lay down their weapons there will be peace. But if we lay down our weapons there will be a holocaust.”

So as I sit here I think about the journey that is before me. I have begun my preparations and as the day approaches I find myself more and more focused. I will leave behind my wife and my son, who I will have only known for one month, bound for Iraq on my second combat tour with my Marine Reserve unit.

And I am prepared to walk back into the fire for my wife, my son, and all of you.

Semper Fi
Sgt. Baker M. Brooks
Section Leader
Weapons Company (Mobile Assault Capable)
3rd Battalion 23rd Marine Regiment 4th Marine Division
Baton Rouge, LA

 

[WI Crippler]

Why is keeping our troops in harm's way supporting the troops?

So we want to spend our tax money paying for a military that we shelter and do not allow into combat, because its dangerous??

Troops are there to be put into harms way, so that harm does not befall citizens of our country. And in our current policing the world role we adopted after the results of our previous isolationism(WWI & WWII), our troops are going to be put into harms way for the citizens of other countries as well.....

 

[Iriemon]

A reader has forwarded to Powerline a message from Marine Sergeant Baker Brooks, who is about to be deployed to Iraq and wants to make his feelings known:

The guy is a good soldier supporting the cause, but IMO but he is delusional about the fighting in Iraq.

His justification for the war in Iraq is because we are fighting "radical Islam". But his reasoning is circular. The US unjustifiably (in the eyes of many) attacked and occupies Iraq. Because of the wrongful act of the US, it is resisted. That resistance is labelled "terrorist" or "radical" which then ipso facto because the justification for the fighting.

It is self-justifying and circular. The vast bulk of the "radicals" we are fighting in Iraq are radicals of our own creation. Through in a little fear tactics and a dash of bigotry, and our unjustified attack on Iraq is now justified because of the "radical islamists" there.

If our enemy is radical Islam, the worst thing the US can do is maintain its occupation of Iraq, because the infidel occupation of Islamic holy lands is fueling the fire of radical Islam.

 

[VTA]

The guy is a good soldier supporting the cause, but IMO but he is delusional about the fighting in Iraq.

His justification for the war in Iraq is because we are fighting "radical Islam". But his reasoning is circular. The US unjustifiably (in the eyes of many) attacked and occupies Iraq. Because of the wrongful act of the US, it is resisted. That resistance is labelled "terrorist" or "radical" which then ipso facto because the justification for the fighting.

It is self-justifying and circular. The vast bulk of the "radicals" we are fighting in Iraq are radicals of our own creation. Through in a little fear tactics and a dash of bigotry, and our unjustified attack on Iraq is now justified because of the "radical islamists" there.

If our enemy is radical Islam, the worst thing the US can do is maintain its occupation of Iraq, because the infidel occupation of Islamic holy lands is fueling the fire of radical Islam.

This is clearly revistionist history.
It was radical Islamic elements that spurned the acts of 1993, 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2001. All events which preceded America's invasion of Iraq.

It seems to follow a logic that states, don't fight a mugger, or you'll just get him mad enough to mug you.

The people fighting in Iraq are followers of the doctrine of radical Islam, be they foreign fighters, which there are plenty of, attracted to Iraq to die at American military hands, or Iraqi nationals bent on following the doctrine to the T, now that Sadaam is no longer around to sypress such actions.

 

[Iriemon]

This is clearly revistionist history.
It was radical Islamic elements that spurned the acts of 1993, 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2001. All events which preceded America's invasion of Iraq.

All events which had nothing to do with Iraq.

It seems to follow a logic that states, don't fight a mugger, or you'll just get him mad enough to mug you.

The logic is that if you go and wack an innocent fellow, don't be surprised if he hits you back. The warmongers would say that you'd be justified in fighting the fellow because he is a radical for hitting you back.

The people fighting in Iraq are followers of the doctrine of radical Islam, be they foreign fighters, which there are plenty of, attracted to Iraq to die at American military hands, or Iraqi nationals bent on following the doctrine to the T, now that Sadaam is no longer around to sypress such actions.

The people fighting in Iraq are fighting against an unjustified infidel attack and occupation of their holy lands.

 

[oldreliable67]

The guy is a good soldier supporting the cause, but IMO but he is delusional about the fighting in Iraq.

You have your opinion; he has his. There are many aspects of your opinions that you have stated many times on DP that appear, IMO, to be delusional, even bordering on hysteria. But they are your opinions and you have every right to them. As does Sergeant Brooks.

The people fighting in Iraq are fighting against an unjustified infidel attack and occupation of their holy lands.

First, it is grossly inaccurate to lump all "people fighting in Iraq" into this one category. One, there are many thousands of Iraqis that have joined the Iragi Army and police force and are actively fighting against the insurgents alongside the US military. Yes, the desertion rate has been high and the effectiveness has been slow to improve. But the trends of both are in the right direction. Two, there are now a number of Iraqi tribal groups that have banded together in opposition to Al Qaeda in Iraq and support the MNF troops -- in Anbar province, one of these groups is actually Sunni.

 

[VTA]

All events which had nothing to do with Iraq.

You cannot deflect the truth of the above mentioned information to simply avoid admitting that you're inaccurate in thinking 'radical Islam' is a label given to those fighting in Iraq, because America is in Iraq. It's a war that far predates Iraq and Iraq is a symptom.

The logic is that if you go and wack an innocent fellow, don't be surprised if he hits you back. The warmongers would say that you'd be justified in fighting the fellow because he is a radical for hitting you back.

The better logic is to understand the root of the problem and work on it. At it's very core, with the best strategical advantage you can afford yourself. The people in Iraq are not all innocent, just as America isn't completely innocent. And the fighting isn't between America and patriotic Iraqi's, it's between radical islamists and misguided civilians.

The strategy is and was to draw them into conflict and kill them. With an unknowable number of terrorists who flowed into Iraq to die, I'd say it's a strategy that has worked to some extent. The effects of the strategy are horrid and obviously unaccounted for, but America was initially hitting first at those they had intended to... until the enemy decided to drag the general population into it by stirring prejudice and killings that appeared to be sectarian. A strategy, nothing more or less.

The people fighting in Iraq are fighting against an unjustified infidel attack and occupation of their holy lands.

Infidel my ***.
Perhaps if they'd stayed away from American planes, embassies, warships and invited guests, such as at the Khobar Towers, America would have no cause to occupy their 'holy lands'.

Yournotion that they're regular Iraqi's defending their land is erroneous; the average Iraqi wants no part of either side of the conflict and is unfortunately caught in the middle. The average Iraqi in the street rightfully complains to the American military. If he tries that with the other side, he dies.

 

[Iriemon]

You have your opinion; he has his. There are many aspects of your opinions that you have stated many times on DP that appear, IMO, to be delusional, even bordering on hysteria. But they are your opinions and you have every right to them. As does Sergeant Brooks.

Right!

And you have every right to voice your views or post facts to point out the delusional aspects of my opinions or statements (which you do frequently : ) ).

Are you suggesting I do not have the same right to voice my opinion as to something you posted?

First, it is grossly inaccurate to lump all "people fighting in Iraq" into this one category. One, there are many thousands of Iraqis that have joined the Iragi Army and police force and are actively fighting against the insurgents alongside the US military. Yes, the desertion rate has been high and the effectiveness has been slow to improve. But the trends of both are in the right direction. Two, there are now a number of Iraqi tribal groups that have banded together in opposition to Al Qaeda in Iraq and support the MNF troops -- in Anbar province, one of these groups is actually Sunni.

Mine was an over-generalization sure; but I submit no more of one than the post to which I was responding.

 

[Iriemon]

You cannot deflect the truth of the above mentioned information to simply avoid admitting that you're inaccurate in thinking 'radical Islam' is a label given to those fighting in Iraq, because America is in Iraq. It's a war that far predates Iraq and Iraq is a symptom.

I am deflecting nothing. You were the one who brought up the Al-Queda attacks inthe context of a thread discussing Iraq.

The revisionist history is your implicit contention that attacking Iraq somehow has something to do with radical Islam.

If, as I think we both agree, the problem we face is radical Islam, then Iraq was about the last country we should have picked to attack. Hussein was a brutal dictator, but he was no radical Islamist. He was relatively secular, and his top foreign minister was a Christian. Hussein's Iraq was a hedge against the much more radical Islamic government of Iran, and was an obstacle to any Islamic radical group's goal of a pan-Islamic government.

The better logic is to understand the root of the problem and work on it. At it's very core, with the best strategical advantage you can afford yourself. The people in Iraq are not all innocent, just as America isn't completely innocent. And the fighting isn't between America and patriotic Iraqi's, it's between radical islamists and misguided civilians.

I disagree with your characterization. Iraq, was more culturally diverse than most Arab nations with large populations of Christians, Kurds, Sunnis and Shias, and Iraqis were known as being relatively more tolerant than other ME countries. The Sunnis in the insurgencies aren't fighting because they are radical Islamics, but because the US came in and forceably deposed them from power in the country. The fact that the US is viewed as "crusaders" adds to the fevor.

The strategy is and was to draw them into conflict and kill them. With an unknowable number of terrorists who flowed into Iraq to die, I'd say it's a strategy that has worked to some extent. The effects of the strategy are horrid and obviously unaccounted for, but America was initially hitting first at those they had intended to... until the enemy decided to drag the general population into it by stirring prejudice and killings that appeared to be sectarian. A strategy, nothing more or less.

The "strategy" is inane. Invade a country based on false pretense, and when people resist you kill them and say ah-ha! we are accomplishing something!

It's not a strategy. It is a circulation self-justification for a war that was unjustified.

America is hitting Iraqis that had nothing to do with 9-11 or terrorist attacks on the US. What has been accomplished is that hordes of Iraqis and others who would otherwise never have a radical idea in their heads are now "radical Islamics" and "terrorists" because they are resisting a wrongful occupation of their country.

Infidel my ***.
Perhaps if they'd stayed away from American planes, embassies, warships and invited guests, such as at the Khobar Towers, America would have no cause to occupy their 'holy lands'.

There you go again.

We are talking about Iraq and to justify your position you resort to actions that had nothing to do with Iraq or Iraqis.

Your notion that they're regular Iraqi's defending their land is erroneous; the average Iraqi wants no part of either side of the conflict and is unfortunately caught in the middle. The average Iraqi in the street rightfully complains to the American military. If he tries that with the other side, he dies.

I disagree with your assertion. The last insurgency in Iraq was in 1991 when the CIA inspired Kurds and Shias to revolt against Hussein. This current insurgency only arose when the US wrongly attacked and occupied their country.

And someone must be supporting the insurgents. The would not be able to operate successfully if they could not meld into the local population to hide.

 

[oldreliable67]

Are you suggesting I do not have the same right to voice my opinion as to something you posted?

Absolutely not! In fact, and this is just my opinion (!), your posts are quite often much more articulate, literate and informed than many others here on DP, even though I often disagree -- but "often" is not "always". On the whole, I always look forward to your posts! Well, almost always!

 

[Iriemon]

Absolutely not! In fact, and this is just my opinion (!), your posts are quite often much more articulate, literate and informed than many others here on DP, even though I often disagree -- but "often" is not "always". On the whole, I always look forward to your posts! Well, almost always!

LOL fair enough, ditto on this side -- and you have pointed out a delusion here and there. : )

 

[VTA]

I am deflecting nothing. You were the one who brought up the Al-Queda attacks inthe context of a thread discussing Iraq.

The revisionist history is your implicit contention that attacking Iraq somehow has something to do with radical Islam.

No not revistionist at all. I've maintained that this war is all about defeating the ideology that's born in the region and by weakening Iran. Iraq, wisely or not was chosen as the place to stage it from.

If, as I think we both agree, the problem we face is radical Islam, then Iraq was about the last country we should have picked to attack.

That's certainly a fair assumption and logical to question.

Hussein was a brutal dictator, but he was no radical Islamist.

Which kind of makes it easier: he did not enjoy the support of the hard liners. He was isolated and many would not back him

I disagree with your characterization. Iraq, was more culturally diverse than most Arab nations with large populations of Christians, Kurds, Sunnis and Shias, and Iraqis were known as being relatively more tolerant than other ME countries. The Sunnis in the insurgencies aren't fighting because they are radical Islamics, but because the US came in and forceably deposed them from power in the country. The fact that the US is viewed as "crusaders" adds to the fevor.

And with good reason, the Sunni minority oppressed the others and now they're scared and pissed that America has brought this on.

Diversity doesn't really come into play. Of all Mid East Nations, the one most like America, believe it or not is Iran; there exists more diversity in Iran than in Iraq, with Christians/Copts, Jews as well as Muslim factions.

Ther terminology of crusaders is propoganda intended to provoke an emotional response. The names they call America are nothing compared to the acts of war that have been carried out.

The "strategy" is inane. Invade a country based on false pretense, and when people resist you kill them and say ah-ha! we are accomplishing something!

It's not a strategy. It is a circulation self-justification for a war that was unjustified.

The lying is insane. I'll always maintain that; the lying pretext for war is garbage and undermines the whole effort. As for the strategy itself, history is going to tell whether or not it bears any value. It's too close and too soon and too far from over to make any tangible judgment

America is hitting Iraqis that had nothing to do with 9-11 or terrorist attacks on the US.
What has been accomplished is that hordes of Iraqis and others who
would otherwise never have a radical idea in their heads are now "radical Islamics" and "terrorists" because they are resisting a wrongful occupation of their country.

What evidence supports this? The countless non-Irqi's in American custody? Do you think Guantanemo or any other American facility is full of Iraqi's?

Just because the foreigners successfully recruited some nationals, which probably wasn't all that hard, doesn't discount the initial intent of the war. It's basically been written in stone by now, despite the adminsitrations *****footing over what to call this struggle. It is about Radical Islam. Decry the strategy all you want, that's your right, but to assert that the man mentioned above who's living it is delusional is the height of delusion itself. You start with a left handed compliment about 'good soldier' by implying he's great at simply taking orders like an brainless automaton, then go on to basically state that you know more than him. Incredible. How long have you been in Iraq by the way?

There you go again.

We are talking about Iraq and to justify your position you resort to actions that had nothing to do with Iraq or Iraqis.

And I'll keep saying it. Everyone knows not an Iraqi was in sight on 9/11; Iraq is a sympton of the war and the actions that brought us to war.

I disagree with your assertion. The last insurgency in Iraq was in 1991 when the CIA inspired Kurds and Shias to revolt against Hussein. This current insurgency only arose when the US wrongly attacked and occupied their country.

And someone must be supporting the insurgents. The would not be able to operate successfully if they could not meld into the local population to hide.

Yeah of course. Do you know how many innocent people who've even been suspected of talking with Americans have died? A gun to your head would have you volunteering to help in a snap. It's a horribly unfair position for them to be in, no doubt, but that's it in a nutshell. The loudest Iraqi national rousing people to action is al Sadr, because he has no place in what America wants. America should have denied his white flag and killed him when they had the chance.

In the end, we can't really disprove each others assertions. History is going to do have to do that.

 

[Iriemon]

No not revistionist at all. I've maintained that this war is all about defeating the ideology that's born in the region and by weakening Iran. Iraq, wisely or not was chosen as the place to stage it from.

Not wisely. If our goal is to defeat radical ideology, invading and occupying Iraq was and is counter-producting and has been and is a major setback in our objective, for reasons stated above.

Which kind of makes it easier: he did not enjoy the support of the hard liners. He was isolated and many would not back him

He had the backing apparently of a significant number of the Sunnis, and was apparently at least to some extent was tolerated by members of other groups.

And with good reason, the Sunni minority oppressed the others and now they're scared and pissed that America has brought this on.

Of course. The question is, how does having pissed off 20 million Sunnis in Iraq forward our objective of reducing radical Islamistists?

Diversity doesn't really come into play. Of all Mid East Nations, the one most like America, believe it or not is Iran; there exists more diversity in Iran than in Iraq, with Christians/Copts, Jews as well as Muslim factions.

Is that so? I'm not aware there is a major Christian presence in Iran. I am aware that a small Jewish group has existed in Teheran for centuries.

Ther terminology of crusaders is propoganda intended to provoke an emotional response. The names they call America are nothing compared to the acts of war that have been carried out.

Most of them have done nothing.

It would be interesting to compare the number of death caused by terrorists over the past 4 years with the number of deaths caused by the US attack on Iraq.

The lying is insane. I'll always maintain that; the lying pretext for war is garbage and undermines the whole effort. As for the strategy itself, history is going to tell whether or not it bears any value. It's too close and too soon and too far from over to make any tangible judgment

You are correct that no one can fortell the future. However, based upon the accuracy of the prognications of Administration officicals and war proponents thus far, I have no confidence at all in their current predications about the ME.

Originally Posted by Iriemon
America is hitting Iraqis that had nothing to do with 9-11 or terrorist attacks on the US.
What has been accomplished is that hordes of Iraqis and others who
would otherwise never have a radical idea in their heads are now "radical Islamics" and "terrorists" because they are resisting a wrongful occupation of their country.

What evidence supports this? The countless non-Irqi's in American custody? Do you think Guantanemo or any other American facility is full of Iraqi's?

According to reports, scores of thousands of Iraqis have been imprisoned. My statement is further supported by the fact that Iraqi involvement in terrorist attacks before Mar 03 was virtually non-existent, but now there are many thousands who are called radicals or terrorists fighting us in Iraq.

Just because the foreigners successfully recruited some nationals, which probably wasn't all that hard, doesn't discount the initial intent of the war. It's basically been written in stone by now, despite the adminsitrations *****footing over what to call this struggle. It is about Radical Islam. Decry the strategy all you want, that's your right, but to assert that the man mentioned above who's living it is delusional is the height of delusion itself. You start with a left handed compliment about 'good soldier' by implying he's great at simply taking orders like an brainless automaton, then go on to basically state that you know more than him. Incredible. How long have you been in Iraq by the way?

I haven't been. The fallacy of Sgt. Brooks' contention is self-evident. Before the Iraq war virtually no Iraqis were involved in terrorist attacks. Now Iraqi is full of Iraqi "radicals" and "terrorists" and Brooks is more than eager to go over and spill their blood. The radicals did not exist before the war, they are there now, and the obvious fact that changed was the unjustified pretextual invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Sgt. Brooks is more than eager to spill the blood of Iraqis who are fighting the unjustified invader of their country. Good for him; but IMO, bad for the country. As our attack and occupation is viewed as illegitimate, every Iraqi Sgt. Brooks kills is likely to create another radical or terrorist from a surviving son, brother, cousin or father.

IMO, the fact that the people of the land you unjustly invaded and occupy resist the occupation does not legitimize or justify the attack and ongoing occupation. That is circular reasoning and a self-fulfilling proposition. We could invade the UK and we'd find folks we could call "radicals" for resisting our invasion there, too. That would not make the attack legitimate.

And I'll keep saying it. Everyone knows not an Iraqi was in sight on 9/11; Iraq is a sympton of the war and the actions that brought us to war.

Huh? A symptom of what war? What actions brought us to war in Iraq are you talking about?

Yeah of course. Do you know how many innocent people who've even been suspected of talking with Americans have died? A gun to your head would have you volunteering to help in a snap. It's a horribly unfair position for them to be in, no doubt, but that's it in a nutshell. The loudest Iraqi national rousing people to action is al Sadr, because he has no place in what America wants. America should have denied his white flag and killed him when they had the chance.

Killing Al-Sadr would lead to open revolt against the US by the one group that we are pinning our hopes upon to stabilize Iraq -- the Shia, death squads and all. Do that and you might as well throw in the towel.

In the end, we can't really disprove each others assertions. History is going to do have to do that.

Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of hindsight in deciding what policy to follow now.