Admiral William Fallon

As an outspoken military family member who has unique and strong opinions, I regret the resignation of Adm. William Fallon. Despite the recent downturn in violence in Iraq, I don’t see how anyone could say that the rest of the way will be a cakewalk, and Afghanistan is far from a conclusion, as well. I don’t consider his comments to be that contentious. It was fear and blind patriotism that got us to this place and a man who has served his country with such honor and distinction should not feel pressured or compelled to resign for speaking his mind.

Boeing And The Air Force Contract

Going to war with the army you have means deciding to start a war without enough troops, armor or the right equipment, even without a plan for the aftermath. Bureaucratic delays meant lost lives when a vehicle designed to protect against IEDs was deemed too expensive. I was very upset to hear they were sending a new helicopter gunship - but without the gun and without the ability to land safely in the event of engine loss - but the violence has subsided and I have not heard any bad news. If the new Air Force contract was based on cost alone, they had better forget it; if it is a better product, put a sock in it.

Who Among The Republicans Is Looking Out For The Troops?

All I hear from the Republicans is how safe they feel. How George W. Bush has kept them safe and that to lose the White House to the Democrats would result in their being less safe. Pardon me for thinking more about my loved ones than myself, but who is looking out to keep the troops safe?

My understanding is that the surge was only made possible by extending tours to fifteen months, by all accounts putting additional strain on an already strained military. The number of “high-quality” recruits has continually fallen. As a military family member, when I hear this, I think about what would happen if the situation in Iraq or Afghanistan suddenly worsened, who would be ready to help? What “quality” of people are being sent to watch the troops’ back?

Never mind that a recent report by the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves says the nation "’does not have sufficient trained, ready forces available’ to respond to a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons incident, ‘an appalling gap that places the nation and its citizens at greater risk,’” and that, “Even fewer Army National Guard units are combat-ready today than were nearly a year ago.” They are still drastically short of equipment. To me, this means that my loved ones could be put in a position made even more dangerous by a lack of proper equipment and trained, battle-ready soldiers.

The current situation has resulted in an “unprecedented” reliance on our citizen soldiers – the National Guard and Reserves. Yet, the Commission’s first recommendation - pointing to the “continued strain on the military as it fights wars on two fronts” and saying there is "no reasonable alternative" - is to rely heavily on the reserves to supplement the active duty forces because it would be cheaper! What kind of gratitude is this?

John McCain, the war hero, says we will stay in Iraq 100 years, if that’s what it takes, and that it shouldn't be difficult to expand the U.S. military despite a shortfall in recruitment. Is he going to be just another flowery, patriotic orator who will not ask any sacrifice of the people?

The Effects Of The War

I recently had an e-mail discussion with someone who is a contributor to americanthinker.com, which is almost as bad as townhall in its shrillness. I do not have permission to reprint the correspondance so I will just say that she/he indicated that the media, once again, was ignoring the "good news" from Iraq.

She indicated that she supports the troops but is against a draft, that the establishment of Israel was a "consolation gift" for the Holocaust and that the problem today is due to the simple fact that other Arab nations are somehow responsible for taking in the displaced Palestinians.

Among my responses:

I am not sure that my young nephew, who is a U.S. Marine, would have learned in school that the U.S. was once a supporter of Sadaam Hussein as well as other dictators and even terrorists, when it suited us. He certainly is not old enough to have done anything to contribute to the situation and I find it appalling that the people who did, will not acknowledge it.

Of course, I have no problem with my loved ones - I am also to be married to a Missouri National Guardsman who has served in Iraq - fulfilling their duty. I find the Republicans fervent opposition to a draft to be no different than the war protesters, both past and present, except that the war protesters don't want anyone to go while you people just don't want you to go.

Meanwhile, the Iraq war has diverted much attention and resources from the war in Afghanistan which you acknowledge has gotten worse and with the situation in Pakistan is more dire than ever. I fully supported that war but I am also aware of the continuing problem with women's rights as well as incidents like the recent death sentence for blasphemy of a reporter. "A young journalist in the north of Afghanistan faces the death penalty in what observers say is a well-orchestrated campaign of intimidation against the media."

The expectation of an American-style democracy in both Iraq and Afghanistan may not be entirely realistic. The mission should have been kept to hunting down Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.

As for my knowledge of history, I am not a scholar, but I have spent much time studying my religon and I have a special interest in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict because, to me, I just find it incredible that anyone could read the Bible and not wonder about all of that outright slaughter. Do you honestly consider a Palestinian life to be as valuable as an American life? An Iraqi?

Honestly, I have found William Dalrymple's comment about simple-minded bigots to be quite appropriate when considering the remarks made on right-wing blogs. I do not judge your comments to be honest or convincing.

----------------

Whatever. You go ahead and believe that you "support the troops." My local paper has reported - War? What war? - that the number of high-quality recruits has continually dropped since the Iraq war started.

The Bush administration is sending "strong signals" that the troop reductions will slow or stop altogether this summer (multiple tours - even longer than 15 months?) because the recent security improvements are "tenuous," and top U.S. commanders predict that the battle for Mosul will be a "grinding campaign" that will require more firepower from both the Pentagon and Iraqi allies.

That's OK, there is no limit to what you will ask of the troops.

--------------

Also, this from TIME:

(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. military isn't ready for a catastrophic attack on the country, and National Guard forces don't have the equipment or training they need for the job, according to a report.

Even fewer Army National Guard units are combat-ready today than were nearly a year ago when the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves determined that 88 percent of the units were not prepared for the fight, the panel says in a new report released Thursday.

The independent commission is charged by Congress to recommend changes in law and policy concerning the Guard and Reserves.

The commission's 400-page report concludes that the nation "does not have sufficient trained, ready forces available" to respond to a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons incident, "an appalling gap that places the nation and its citizens at greater risk."

"Right now we don't have the forces we need, we don't have them trained, we don't have the equipment," commission Chairman Arnold Punaro said in an interview with The Associated Press. "Even though there is a lot going on in this area, we need to do a lot more. ... There's a lot of things in the pipeline, but in the world we live in — you're either ready or you're not."

The Surge

Patty Matthews (Letters, 1-02-08) writes that it was the surge that enabled the Sunnis to turn against al-Qaida; it was the surge that took back the major cities from the extremists, etc. The dots that she and the conservative pundits seem to be unable to connect is that the surge definitively proved that there were never enough boots on the ground in Iraq from the beginning.

Many of our top military leaders were against a “surge” because they knew it would mean extended deployments for an already strained military and that the surge could not be maintained past this summer. What will happen after the additional troops start pulling out is not clear.
I am a military family member and I believe there should have been a draft a long time ago. The troops should have had the real support they needed to stay until the Iraqi people could produce a viable country.

Your Typical Ignorant/Delusional Right-Wing Hick

Some woman, "Goodwin," wrote into my local paper about the resolution condemning Turkey for genocide and the effect it would have on the troops. She said the Democrats should practice the "diplomacy" they are so fond of.

Goodwin is just your typical ignorant/delusional right-wing hick. “Diplomacy” as well as “good governance” and the “Bush administration” has nothing to do with the truth or reality. These kooks think they can just pick and choose the history that suits them - they have no use for it except to inflate their own self-worth or to nurse their own grievances.

It is absurd that ANYONE would even consider electing Republicans. They don’t read the paper, they only see what they want to see, all Iraqis killed are TERRORISTS, it would be irresponsible to pay for this war – better to pass the buck off to the grandchildren, new recruits can get the desert training they need in Iraq – IN COMBAT, troops don’t need body armor – it’s TOO HEAVY (Michelle Malkin - a ridiculous, superstitious and ignorant woman who has been insulting me, a military family member, since this war started), there is no shortage of these brave Republicans willing to fight this war they started, that is why the Army has lowered it’s standards AGAIN, taking violent criminals, and helicopter gunships don’t need guns. Petraeus “wrote the book” on counterinsurgency, which calls for as many troops to occupy Baghdad as are in the entire country, but it would be treasonous to call him on it. The glowing success in Fallujah, it turns out, is due to MARTIAL LAW, the city is under 24-hour lockdown, surrounded by berms and barbed wire, vehicles are banned and residents had to submit to fingerprints and retina scans to get ID cards that let them stay. How long can they keep this up after the troops pull out? Osama bin Laden, meanwhile, is not off in a cave somewhere plotting more attacks; he is “impotent.”

These backwards, backwoods throwbacks can even say with absolute certainly that global warming is a hoax while their own military leaders quietly go about discussing the need for new policies that would “oblige intergovernmental cooperation” by future U.S. administrations, knowing that environmental stresses may severely damage economies, destabilize political systems and upend millions of lives, causing mass migrations across international borders, including our own.

These hicks are a disgrace to this country.

************************

General Betray Us - Move-On Ad

I guess since the right-wing Kulturkampf has been calling anybody who disagrees with them traitors as well as every other name in the book since before this war started, the move-on ad didn’t even strike me as being all that unusual. I took it to mean that the general’s testimony was not going to be entirely straightforward because he had been put in an impossible situation.

What I was thinking about was the army’s new counterinsurgency manual. As I have said countless times, it calls for as many troops to occupy Baghdad as are in the entire country. And General Petraeus was in charge of writing it.

The so-called religious right has joined forces in an Unholy Alliance with an extremist-leaning sort in the mold of a backwoods militia, not exactly your Sunday school crowd, and they just stand mute while the likes of Ann Coulter say that all liberals are “godless.” They can question your faith but you can’t question a general?

It is unpatriotic to question the president, the premise of this war or its execution? Bush has unequivocally stated that we will still be at war in Iraq when his presidency is over. Karl Rove has no regrets, Cheney would do it all over again and Bush is looking forward to raking in the dough making speeches and not one of them has the decency to acknowledge the lives that will be lost.

The right-wingers are livid if you should mention the strain on the military, lagging enlistments, a draft. It is unpatriotic to question why more of them are not willing to fight this war they started? The surge is purportedly tamping down violence in Baghdad, but it is treasonous to question why the commander-in-chief did not take any steps to prolong the surge, if necessary?

Nobody wants this war to have been “in vain.” But, if you are going to start a war you had better make damn sure you know what you are doing and you had better make damn sure, every step of the way, that the troops are getting the support they need, for real. Refusing to acknowledge the real cost of this war and refusing to address obvious problems reeks of politics, not patriotism.

War In Iraq Politics

Michael Ramirez’s cartoon (8-29-05) depicts Cindy Sheehan holding a doll/baby labeled “POLITICS” and she is wearing a pin that says “LET MY SONS DEATH BE FOR NOTHING.” As if she, as a mother, wouldn’t be doing this if this had been a Democrat-led war.

The arrogance of those who would still have us believe that the justification for this war was not falsified and that the war is not going badly is revolting.

But, I can’t say it any better than to quote Molly Ivins, “…government policies have real consequences in people’s lives. This is not ‘just politics’ or blaming for political advantage. This is about the real consequences of what governments do and do not do about their responsibilities. And about who winds up paying the price for those policies.”

Ivins was speaking of certain environmental policies that contributed to the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, but it is all the same. This administration’s vision is backwards and corrupt.

Personally, it insults my intelligence to have someone say that my opinions are politically motivated as I have no political affiliation and find politics in general to be quite repulsive and this is precisely why.



-9-04-05

18,000 Native Americans In The Fight In Iraq, Afghanistan

...Across the country, the journey from reservation to battlefield is a common passage. American Indians sign up at greater rates than virtually any other ethnic group. That’s partly because their cultures often give special status to warriors, and partly because economic prospects in many tribal areas remain so bleak.

While American Indians and Alaska natives account for just 0.8 percent of the country’s population, they make up about 1.6 percent of those serving in the U.S. military.

That translates to almost 22,000 people in uniform, more than 18,000 sent to Iraq or Afghanistan and almost 3,800 of those deployed today. More than 300 have been wounded in battle in the past six years, and 46 died...

...Since the start of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, military recruiters have found it ever harder to find people willing to sign up knowing deployment to a trouble spot was likely. Besides lowered standards and pumped-up bonuses, the wartime environment has produced a change in demographics.

Enlistment among most ethnic groups, especially African-Americans, has declined this decade. But the rate for American Indians has increased...

************************

America You Are A Fraud

What I want to know is where are all the badasses who were frothing at the mouth to start this war?

According to Fred Kaplan - writer of "War Stories" for Slate - the Army has a hard time getting 7,000 NEW recruits a year.

That's NEW recruits, not reenlistments:

Guilianni says that we need ten more combat brigades:

"Ten combat brigades translate to 40,000 to 50,000 soldiers. The Army has a hard time recruiting 7,000 new combat soldiers a year. Does Giuliani have any ideas on how to get more?"

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2172285/

Cowards. The people of America had enough information - that it would take several hundred thousand troops to occupy a country the size of Iraq, according to a four-star general - not to start this war but they all knew they would not have to fight it. America is a fraud.

They have sat there and let this thing drag out for five years, they get on the Internet and talk real big. Everything that could go wrong, went wrong, and still they just talk, talk, talk. What big men.

************************
Here are a couple of responses to this paper that I posted at rightwingnews.com. These people have no class, whatsoever - they are clowns:

Heh trolls are cute

Posted by Christopher_Taylor
September 15, 2007 11:48 AM
-----------------------------
NoSoSmart,

"According to Fred Kaplan - writer of "War Stories" for Slate - the Army has a hard time getting 7,000 NEW recruits a year.

That's NEW recruits, not reenlistments."

You and Fred had better check your sources. To claim that the Army is having difficulty "getting 7,000 NEW recruits a year" is only off by a factor of 10. According to the official DoD Recruiting report, for the 11 months ending on 31 Aug, the Army had recruited 71,987 so far this FY, 102 percent of their goal of 70,500.

I attended a brief by the Army Vice Chief of Staff, General Cody, this week and he stated that all services will probably reach their recruiting goals, with the possible exception of the Air National Guard. They are currently recruiting at 93% of their goal. The Marines (you know, those guys who are "First to Fight") are at 109% of their goal.

It is sad that Staff Sgt. Yance T. Gray and Sgt. Omar Mora died in a TRAFFIC ACCIDENT. Our condolences to their families. Would this have been news if they had not written the od-ed and had died in a TRAFFIC ACCIDENT at Ft Bragg? What about the hundreds of other service members who died in TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS? Aren't they news?

In case you are missing my point, they died in a TRAFFIC ACCIDENT. They could just as easily died in a TRAFFIC ACCIDENT at Ft Bragg, in their home towns, or elsewhere.

You are a fraud. If you are American (which I doubt), you are a traitor. If you aren't American STFU (Shut The Fuck Up).

Posted by A-10
September 16, 2007 9:47 AM
-----------------------------

My nephew is a U.S. Marine, you scumbag, and he REENLISTED. They can extend tours to 15 months and talk about extending them to 18 months and you cowards who started this war would still not go fight it.

Because they were killed in a traffic accident while on duty in Iraq - this makes a difference? The army is a dangerous thing, people get killed all the time in training and exercises. You didn't get in a traffic accident in Iraq simply because you did not put your life on the line. And why not? What is stopping you, loser?

Posted by NoSoIncognito
September 18, 2007 9:44 PM

http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/09/john_kerrys_startlingly_dishon.php?comments=show#comment-85018

************************


And this would break your heart, if you frauds had one:

Why the deaths of Yance T. Gray and Omar Mora are particularly galling.
By Fred Kaplan

On Monday, while Gen. David Petraeus prepared to testify before two House committees about the successes of the surge, seven of his soldiers died when their transport vehicle overturned in a highway accident west of Baghdad.

Two of those soldiers, Staff Sgt. Yance T. Gray, 26, and Sgt. Omar Mora, 28, were part of another group of seven—the seven noncommissioned officers of the 82nd Airborne Division who wrote a brave, well-reasoned op-ed in the Aug. 19 New York Times, calling the prospect of victory "far-fetched" and appraisals of progress "surreal."

It is galling that so many pundits and legislators touted a Times op-ed by two Brookings scholars who spent eight days in Iraq and came away persuaded that the war might be won—but paid virtually no attention to the far more unusual, even unprecedented, op-ed by seven active-duty soldiers still based in Iraq, some on their second or third tour of duty, who dared to step forth and argue otherwise.

http://www.slate.com/id/2173860/

Also:

war stories

Deceptive or Delusional?
Bush's appalling Iraq speech.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Thursday, Sept. 13, 2007, at 11:42 PM ET

http://www.slate.com/id/2173902/

Cowardice Lurking Behind Smoke And Mirrors

Sen. Joe Biden's statement is one of the most intelligent things that I have heard a politician say in quite some time. His and all of the generals' and journalists' comments, however, will likely fall on deaf ears. They are too complex and too "sensitive" and just too damning when this country is being led by a ham-fisted clod whose followers would sell their own souls and their children's futures before they faced reality or admitted they were wrong. Their cowardice is lurking there just behind all of this smoke and mirrors. - karennkc.

**********

“The fact of the matter is that American lives remain in jeopardy and...if every single jihadi in the world was killed tomorrow, we’d still have a major, major war on our hands.” – Sen. Joseph Biden

**********

Speaking at a symposium on terrorist threats at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, retired four-star Gen. Barry McCaffrey said, “U.S. politicians need to act as if the country is at war and ask for sacrifices accordingly.” He also said it would be a mistake to retool the military firepower and strategy too dramatically to meet the threat of insurgencies like that in Iraq and Afghanistan and to do so would leave the U.S. ill-prepared for its next major conflict. “I don’t want to see us spend the next 15 years creating the military that would have been optimized to fight the counter-Sunni civil war campaign in Iraq. I’d rather conclude that we shouldn’t fight that campaign.”

**********

Retired Army Gen. John Abizaid said that beyond attacking the global threat of terrorism with military strength, the United States has done a poor job of applying the economic, political and diplomatic means to fight Islamic extremism. “We need to change that as a matter of national priority.”

**********

This from Warren P. Stroebel, McClatchy Newspapers:

… There was one question that Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker could not, or would not, answer. It was the question that Petraeus posed rhetorically back in 2003 when he led the Army’s 101st Airborne Division into Iraq: “Tell me how this ends.”

Asked whether his proposal for Iraq would make the U.S. safer, Petraeus replied, “Sir, I don’t know, actually.”

Petraeus “is almost certainly the right man for the job in Iraq, but he’s the right person three years too late and 250,000 troops short,” Rep. Ike Skelton, a Missouri Democrat, said Monday.

*********

“It is a measure of how vaporous the ground truths in Iraq have become that George w. Bush had to sneak into the country he conquered. Extra security was needed to proclaim that Iraq was more secure, the surge was working and the country was worth more American blood and treasure...What U.S. strategy could avert the wider bloodshed that looks inevitable in the wake of a smaller force? One small advantage of extending the surge is that it postpones having to find the answer to that question.” – Michael Duffy, TIME 9-17-07.

**********

Crocker is decidedly above party politics. Yet in representing Bush in Iraq, he has inevitably become drawn into the administration's effort to salvage its colossal mistakes. Buying more time may help Bush exit office without experiencing a humiliating withdrawal from Iraq. But it is wrong to ask the troops for more sacrifices without leveling with Americans about what kind of longer-term commitment is really at stake and coming up with a sensible plan to get there. Thus far, the administration has proved either unable or unwilling to get Shiites and Kurds to offer Sunnis a meaningful stake in Iraq's future. And it has done next to nothing toward accepting two of the Baker-Hamilton commission's crucial recommendations about working with Syria and Iran.

Just as with its wishful thinking in invading Iraq four years ago, the White House seems to think that it can eradicate Iran's influence in the region simply by wishing it away. If Bush is sincerely thinking about solving the Iran problem by bombing Iran's nuclear program, then its hard to take seriously its appeal for a little more time to set Iraq on the path of democracy. War with Iran would simply send Petraeus's mission in Iraq into the realm of the unknown. If Americans are being asked to keep armed forces in Iraq, a little more coherence and transparency is in order. - Scott MacLeod

**********

The nature of military leadership is congenital optimism; officers are trained to complete the mission, to refuse to countenance the possibility of failure. That focus is essential when you go to war, but it lacks perspective. That's why civilian leaders—the Commander in Chief—are there to set the mission, to change or abort it when necessary. The trouble is, George W. Bush's credibility on Iraq is nonexistent. And so he has placed David Petraeus, an excellent soldier, in a position way above his pay grade. He has made Petraeus not just the arbiter of Iraq strategy but also, by default, the man who sets U.S. policy for the entire so-called war on terrorism...

...Crocker also testified that the Iraqi Shi'ites were Arabs who had fought fiercely against the Iranians in the eight-year war and were very unlikely to cede control to their Persian neighbor without a fight. - Joe Klein, TIME.

**********

Patriot Day? More Shifting Sands In Iraq

How can Bush's homeland security adviser, Frances Fragos Townsend, say that Osama bin Laden is “virtually impotent,” contrary to top intelligence experts, and when no one even knows where he is or what he has been doing?

The Bush administration would have us believe that Iraq is the “central” front in the global war on terror, and that bin Laden is on some permanent vacation in a cave – no longer a threat? Do these people ever think before they speak? “al-Qaida in Iraq” is only loosely affiliated with al-Qaida and did not even exist before we invaded Iraq. It has been widely reported that al-Qaida is back, in strength, in the lawless Pakistan-Afghanistan border region.

According to some, a debate over the various progress reports from Petraeus, other commanders, government agencies and diplomats is “moot” because Bush has already decided to carry his “new” strategy forward and Democrats lack the votes to stop him.

All I have heard from the war supporters is that the mainstream media is so liberally biased as to be unreliable. Yet, it almost seems forbidden that anybody should ask any hard questions. Why hasn’t Bush taken any steps to alleviate the strain on the military? In a country of 300 million “patriots,” why is it unreasonable to call for a draft? This ill-conceived war in Iraq has put this country in a very precarious position.

The surge was not a number deemed necessary by military experts but rather just a number they were able to scrounge up by extending to fifteen months the tours of the already overtaxed troops. General Petraeus, himself, wrote the army’s new counterinsurgency manual, which calls for as many troops in Baghdad, alone, as are in the entire country. His silence on this point brings into question anything he has to say in regards to the success of the surge or the strategy going forward.

At least it does for me. But, I am just one military family member, a minority, who is not blinded by “patriotism.” I am not willing to sacrifice my loved ones needlessly and recklessly. The military comprises not even 1% of our population and it speaks greatly to the character and honor, or lack thereof, of our “commander-in-chief” and the other 99.99% that the lives and well-being of those brave soldiers who have carried this entire burden does not even rate the slightest consideration.

Bush And His Minions - Oblivious

It concerns me greatly to see the bold headline “American casualties plunge in Iraq” on the front page of the Sept. 2 (Kansas City) Star, with speculation that the troop surge may be working.

Taking the surge months June, July and August, records show 232 U.S. personnel died in combat compared with 158 for the same period last year, giving a higher death rate per 100,000 troops with the larger force.

Also, year-to-date numbers are 689 killed compared with 414 for the first eight months of 2006.

The only way to claim a dramatic improvement, such as the news writer contrived, is to compare an aberrational high May (123) with the slightly lower-than-usual month of August (59).

A broader evaluation of the www.icasualties.org records being used by Nancy Youssef would suggest that it is premature for McClatchy News Service to spread such optimism nationwide based on her selective data snapshot.

Robert K. Russell
Kansas City

The headline on the front page on Sunday was very misleading. It claimed a “plunge” in American combat causalities in Iraq and debated whether it was due to the “surge” in American soldiers or due to a tactical redeployment of insurgents. It was neither, because there has been no plunge in combat deaths.

The number of such deaths in August was virtually identical to the combat deaths in August 2006. And, in July, the number of combat deaths was 65 compared with only 40 in July 2006.

For every month in 2007, the number of American soldiers dying in Iraq was substantially greater than for the same month last year.

During the brutally hot summer, soldiers and insurgents alike move around a lot less in Iraq, and fewer die. Still, more Americans have died every month this year than last. There has been no plunge. Believing Americans are ignorant of the facts on the ground, President Bush continues to lie to the country in a desperate effort to keep this failed war going long enough to hand it to his successor, who can then be blamed for his failures.

Arthur Benson
Kansas City

http://blogs.kansascity.com/unfettered_letters/2007/09/casualties-in-i.html

Stick It To The Democrats

Now that an incompetent Attorney General, a political hack, has rightfully stepped down and Karl Rove has “cut-and-run” the Bush administration should “stick it” to the Democrats and demand that the tax cuts be made permanent, according to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Some of us actually have loved ones who are putting their lives on the line for this country, loved ones who have actually made real sacrifices, spending months at a time away from their homes and families. The day after it was reported that an alleged attack on a U.S. military base in Germany was thwarted, some people just go about their lives, oblivious, showing their true colors.

The Surge Schizophrenia

First, there were reports of a humanitarian crisis, a threat of a “real civil war” from a Kurdish leader and a report that it is the Shiite militias, not al-Qaida in Iraq, who are causing all of the bloodshed and chaos.

Then, there was a column by two hawkish Democrats at the Brookings Institute saying we have a chance to win this war. Now, it is Bush himself telling the VFW that as long as he is president, we will be fighting in Iraq.

George Will put it this way, “The rapturous reception of that column by one faction was evidence of the one thing both factions share -- a powerful will to believe, or disbelieve, as their serenity requires.”

Somewhere along the way there was the report of the possibility of a Shiite-on-Shiite civil war in the south where the British are holed up in Basra, surrounded, like cowboys and Indians – “Three major Shiite political groups are locked in a bloody conflict that has left the city in the hands of militias and criminal gangs, whose control extends to municipal offices and neighborhood streets. The city is plagued by ‘the systematic misuse of official institutions, political assassinations, tribal vendettas, neighborhood vigilantism and enforcement of social mores, together with the rise of criminal mafias that increasingly intermingle with political actors,’ according to a recent report by the International Crisis Group.”

Pardon me, I am just a military family member, not a part of any faction. And I would like to know why, if it is so important to keep fighting this war and if the surge is making such a difference, why doesn’t Bush, the commander, the decider guy, make the necessary moves to get more troops in Iraq, to sustain the surge, why doesn’t he call for a draft if necessary?

President Bush is a fraud. The right-wing Kulturkampf on the Internet is an embarrassing joke - they won’t even read the newspaper - and the future of this country and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be decided by sound bites and the thoughtful, deliberate and educated pronouncements of ignorant hicks like John Hawkins and Ann Coulter. These fools might be able to fool themselves all of the time, but I don’t think the rest of the world is buying it. This is a total disgrace.