Comments on: Other than bungling the capture of Bin Laden, wrecking the economy, breaking the Army in Iraq, and fucking up the Katrina recovery, he’s doing a GREAT job!

By: GlennB

GlennB — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 13:03:39 +0000

Yes, good post, zuzu.

In answer to Tuomas, Iran has the capability to infiltrate southern Iraq. I have seen (albeit rarely) speculation that our major supply line could be strangled, as they are truck convoys that travel north from the gulf. Sitting ducks for guerilla attack. I don’t know how true this is, and don’t have references handy.

Iran also may be collecting anti-ship missiles (China is) and could provide a major distraction in the gulf. (Heck, we had a ship nearly blown out of the water – accidentally, it was mistaken for a tanker – by our ally Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war.)

By: kate

kate — Mon, 04 Sep 2006 05:33:18 +0000

My daughter and some of her then uncommitted to anything friends have found themselves over the last couple of years stopped in shopping malls, in front of diners and everywhere else where young kids hang out, by recruiters wanting them to sign information forms and meet them for their one on one propaganda forums. They promise free money, free college, lotsa fun and nothing about fighting in a war. In fact, when the kids (mine usually) would ask about whether they’d be deployed in Iraq, the recruiters gave pat answers of denial.

For low income kids who see college as a rich man’s right and a poor kid’s impossibility, low wage jobs and no future, the army recruiters offer a juicy bit of hope. They target low income kids specifically, knowing that their social floundering and lack of direction makes them ripe for the picking.

Overheard whilst waiting for a friend in a Dunkin’ Donuts where FoxNews was bleating out of an overhead television on August 31:

“Up next, should the government pay for every natural disaster? We’ll talk to _______ to investigate why just possibly the best option is for the government to opt out completely in the disaster clean-up business.”

…a government official from some part of the war machine, “…we’re winning in Iraq, there’s no question about it, we have a moral duty to stick it out and in force….”

reporter to lacky supposed to offer counterpoint…”So, are you saying that the press coverage in Iraq is not accurate? Are you saying that there is a press cover up?”

Lacky, “No, I think the coverage is getting the full story to the American public and the American public doesn’t like what they see…we’re not saying to get up and leave now…but the public wants an end to this…a plan toward gradual deployment…”

I listened to this whole snippet exhange and couldn’t believe how the Faux News reporter attempted time and again to paint the ‘liberal’ into a corner as an ‘extremist’. The ‘liberal’ backs off by disclaiming the ‘extremist’ views and basically trumpets Liebermanism couched as ‘the left’.

That people listen to and watch this propaganda unfold before them 24/7 and believe it as news just makes me ill.

A plumber I hire, one of my subs, said once to another on a jobsite, “You remind me of….oh, who’s that guy on Fox News at 8?” or something to that effect, assumption being that everyone else, like him has their eyes and brain glued to that shit. He’s a vietnam vet. We discussed once the ravages of war and the social tragedy it causes, “Well at least there are some people willing to fight those wars for us.

When the general public exhibits, like my plumber, a complete lack of ability to think critically and analyze their information, then we are in serious trouble.

By: Buffalo Gal

Buffalo Gal — Mon, 04 Sep 2006 01:08:13 +0000

ah, Norbizness: “Unfrozen Caveman Columnist.” pure, classic, and so, so right.

By: Mary

Mary — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 20:55:35 +0000

When my little cousin turned 18 a couple years ago he signed up for the army, and the army promised him he would not be sent to Iraq. Well, surprise surprise, he was shipped off to Iraq the moment he completed his training. So fucked up….
Oh, and “the homeland”? Such a creepy term…

By: Esme

Esme — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:44:16 +0000

Rhiannon, if I recall correctly, a condition of No Child Left Behind was that high schools were required to turn over student records to the army for the purposes of recruitment. The movement to get “opt-out” forms out to parents was the Leave My Child Alone campaign spearheaded by Cindy Sheehan I believe. I don’t currently have the energy to find my links for it, but google is, in fact, your friend.

By: Rhiannon

Rhiannon — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:14:13 +0000

Here’s something, sort of related to “the next gen of soldiers” thing… just last week my sister’s high school tried to get her to sign a release of information form for THE ARMY, so the school could release her information to the Army…. I told her NO WAY.

How is it even LEGAL for them to ask my 16 year old sister to sign that anyways? Shouldn’t that be up to her parent/guardian? At least until she’s 18…

By: norbizness

norbizness — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 19:52:19 +0000

That's right, all those callups and the National Guard not having any equipment and the age rocketing up about 10 years and around 15000 serious injuries. No problem! Apart from that, how did you like the war, Mrs. Lincoln? The secret origins of Jonah's nickname ("Doughy Pantload") began in May 2004, when the Earth was young and the internet was still cooling.

By: Coopster

Coopster — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 19:51:50 +0000

My point was that when you look at tactical side of the equation — a loss of little over than 2000 troops in completely occupying a country the size of Iraq, it is far from “breaking the army”.

But “breaking the army” isn’t a tactical issue, it’s a strategic one. The fiasco in Iraq is not only demoralizing the troops currently in uniform, it’s creating a generation of young people who will be extremely reluctant to sign up in the future, similar to the situation in the 1970′s immediately following Vietnam.

The Army may not be broken in one fell swoop in Iraq, but it will be broken for many years to come.

By: Tuomas

Tuomas — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 19:46:16 +0000

Is it bad? Obviously.

Has the army been broken? No, I don’t think so. Quite far from it.

And you have to look at the fact that there are no identifiable objectives or goals for ending this thing.

I did, which is exactly why I’m sceptical about the whole thing.

By: zuzu

zuzu — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 19:41:26 +0000

Tuomas, breaking the army is more than a matter of losing 2000 soldiers. I notice you don’t mention the tens of thousands of wounded, many of whom have lost limbs or have traumatic brain injuries and may never work again.

You also need to look at the fact that many of the soldiers and Marines in Iraq are on their second or third tours of duty. You have to look at the fact that many of the troops over there are National Guard troops, who did not sign up for extended tours of duty on foreign soil (in fact, their deployment to Iraq meant that there were far fewer NG troops on US soil available to deal with Katrina). You have to look at the fact that the Army has been slashing its mental and physical standards, and has raised the minimum recruiting age to 43, but hasn’t met its recruitment quotas in years (unless, of course, they’ve lowered the quota so that it appears that they’ve met their targets). You have to look at the fact that recruiters are so desperate that they’re lying to recruits and committing suicide because of the pressure. You have to look at the fact that there is no end in sight, because Commander Codpiece has said that no sir, he won’t consider any troop reductions while he’s in office. And you have to look at the fact that there are no identifiable objectives or goals for ending this thing.

And in no way is the US military “completely” occupying Iraq. The Green Zone, maybe. The British seem to have a pretty good grip on Basra. But the US military is subject to attacks daily all over Iraq from the population.