Article

2004-06-26 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-06-26 01:50|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 ...I was going to read the article, but as soon as I saw NewsMax, I stopped it and closed the window.
They're about as reliable as Al-J...

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2004-06-26 3:26:20 AM|| 2004-06-26 3:26:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 If North Korea doesn't back down; and their yellow 'buddies' help flex that muscle; not to worry, the US will have no shortage in national defenders it will 'find'! I saw a 'simblance' of this during the holding of our surveillance plane crew, a few years ago. Just about everyone I knew (except for walmart people) where ready to throw out and burn every piece of chinese good they had!

Posted by smn 2004-06-26 3:31:20 AM|| 2004-06-26 3:31:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 People would be willing to fight a real war to defend their country. But this Johnny Appleseed PC crap of sowing the seeds of democracy in hellholes where Muslims hate us is another story. When George Bush and John Kerry send the twins and Alexa to the front lines of those paece loving Muslims in Baghdad or Fallujah, then there might be a change of heart. Until then, this is like feeding our young boys to the lions. I am peeved with the way everything is turning out and all we hear these days is about GWB apologizing for panties on the head and caving to the UN over war crimes International court against our GI's and more $ for fighting AIDS in Vietnam where they spit at us and about US Muslims and the ACLU wringing their hands worrying about anti-beheading backlash. NO draft unless the Bush twins and Alexa Kerry are in Fallujah chumming with the religion of peace. End of story.

Posted by rex 2004-06-26 3:48:18 AM|| 2004-06-26 3:48:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 From the article: If, however, another front appears on the nationâs already extended battle lines â N. Korea or Iran, for instance â all bets may be off. And the preparations underway today could mean that a draft could be up and running in just a matter of months. Col. Ray already sees the writing on the wall, referring to the writings of former NATO Supreme Commander Gen. Wesley Clark, who has suggested that there was and may be yet afoot a rather ambitious, albeit clandestine, agenda for American arms, mentioning war scenarios for Iran, North Korea and even ostensible ally Saudi Arabia. Ray wrinkles his brow and rubs his forehead, mulling over what he sees as a dogging question: âWhy have we kept the numbers of troops artificially low? Weâre half the combat strength we had in 1991, yet we are manning 735 bases around the world. Ray doesnât suggest to NewsMax that he has the answer to the conundrum. Yet he sees the draft as perhaps an inevitable consequence of our war on terror.

I think he's wrong. There's nothing we can't do through expanding the size of the volunteer force that we need to do with a draft. While I don't have a problem with the draft*, I don't see anything particularly desirable about this kind of initiative. Maybe if it were accompanied by routine 3-month stint of basic training for every able-bodied American male and female at age 18.

* This ensures that hatriots will have to serve alongside patriots, i.e. it's not only the good - patriots - that will die young

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-06-26 3:52:48 AM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-06-26 3:52:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 We do not need a draft because we do not need to man 735 bases around the world. What does being the world's policeman have to do with patriotism? Instead of 18 year old males[females will be kept out of combat of course], why don't we send 50 year old males? They are reaching the end of their lives, they are less productive members of society, and they will soon be a drain on our health system. Actually 18 year olds represent our future. They should stay home. Are you still interested in the draft, #4, if 50 year olds are sent instead?

Posted by rex 2004-06-26 4:03:14 AM|| 2004-06-26 4:03:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 WHY THE HELL DOES THIS KEEP COMING UP?

A draft? NOBODY is asking for it except Demo Congresscritters and other pot-stirrers who want to try to use it as a club to beat the pro-liberty people with, and as a bludgeon with which they can destroy the military from within.

1) The only reason we do not have a larger military today is that WE ARE NOT PAYING FOR IT! Congress and the previous president CUT headcounts in all the services by as much as half, and over 2/3 in some specialty areas. Authorize it, fund it and we will have enough troops. Remember the last gulf war? We had as many people on the ground just in theater as we do in the ENTIRE US Army now.

2) Draftees are USELESS in the type of military we have now. Draftees are needed for mass armies. We are no longer a mass army, we are an army of manuever. The typical 2 year hitch is not enough to even get a good infantryman up to speed, much less have him combat effective, unless you cut his training and throw him into combat, where the survivors will learn quickly, but the casualty rates will be much higher.

3) The Army is better educated than the general US populcae. A draft woul LOWER the quiality of solider we woudl be able to field. Plus, all current serving memebers are VOLUNTEERS - the influx of draftees woudl put lackluster people out there that are below current standards, who are not motivated, and who do not want to be there.

1. 2. 3.

Its that damned simple.

A draft is NOT needed -and it would only serve to RUIN the professional military we have now.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-06-26 4:25:34 AM|| 2004-06-26 4:25:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 rex: Instead of 18 year old males[females will be kept out of combat of course], why don't we send 50 year old males? They are reaching the end of their lives, they are less productive members of society, and they will soon be a drain on our health system. Actually 18 year olds represent our future. They should stay home.

18-year-olds are drafted for a reason - because they can stand up better to the stress of combat - physically and psychologically, as documented by copious studies from WWII. If the objective is to get people who will help win the nation's wars, there is no way 50-year-olds are going to be drafted in place of 18-year-olds.

And it's a mistake to say that 50-year-olds are less productive than 18-year-olds - the exact opposite is true. In terms of maturity, dedication, experience and knowledge, 50-year-olds beat 18-year-olds hands down. This, by the way, is why 18-year-olds are generally paid less than 50-year-olds.

rex: Are you still interested in the draft, #4, if 50 year olds are sent instead?

No - because this would guarantee that we lose many more casualties and potentially wars as well. War is a young man's occupation. (Also, there is no reason to subject Vietnam-era men to yet another draft - they've taken their chances with the Selective Service).

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-06-26 5:21:31 AM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-06-26 5:21:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Fifty year old men didn't all take their chances with the Selective Service. In fact, many of them evaded the draft, and some of them are in the defense department. I don't think Paul Wolfowitz fought in Vietnam did he and yet he is the chief architect of the Iraq War. War is not a young man's sport. Death does not descriminate against age. I think 50 year olds like Paul Wolfowitz would do great in a war, because he chose war, didn't he? He must like it.

We are facing a declining birth rate. This impacts on our nation's future. Young men will be needed to mate and re-produce our future. Fifty year old men are too old to raise young families and they certainly will not be attractive to young fertile females. I think 50 year old men, who have evaded the Vietnam War draft, are imminently more suitable to go to Iraq than the baby making young men in high school and college. We need them home in America.

Posted by rex 2004-06-26 5:35:01 AM|| 2004-06-26 5:35:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 rex: Fifty year old men didn't all take their chances with the Selective Service. In fact, many of them evaded the draft, and some of them are in the defense department.

So? And some who did not serve are *not* in the Defense Department. I think you're presuming that conservatives are somehow obligated to take the place of liberals in fighting the nation's wars. Not so. National security is every American's responsibility. When drafted by Uncle Sam, both liberals and conservatives must serve. But conservatives have no special duty to serve in the military, any more than liberals have any special duty to pay extra taxes for the social programs they are always foisting upon conservative taxpayers.

rex: I don't think Paul Wolfowitz fought in Vietnam did he and yet he is the chief architect of the Iraq War. War is not a young man's sport. Death does not descriminate against age.

War is a young man's game because victory does discriminate against age.

rex: I think 50 year olds like Paul Wolfowitz would do great in a war, because he chose war, didn't he? He must like it.

What was that stream of consciousness all about? Wolfowitz was appointed by GWB, who made the decision to go to war. If you want to blame someone, go to the source. No need to pussyfoot (or should I say moby) around.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-06-26 6:12:24 AM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-06-26 6:12:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Rx: I'm 52 and I already did my stint. I would really hate to be in combat beside a draftee who isn't motivated by anything except to serve his time and get out. He would be unreliable in a fight and I'd just as soon be in a foxhole alone.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2004-06-26 8:08:20 AM|| 2004-06-26 8:08:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Zhang Fei, I think you're right - rex is doing a moby here.

Old Spook is right - the LAST think today's military wants is a draft. Our forces are high tech, mobile and use sophisticated tactics. Fitting huge numbers of unwilling people into that way of fighting would be a recipe for disaster -- the training requirements alone would suck up so much of our existing experienced cadre as to REDUCE our operational capability a lot.

Those who say we don't have enough forces are right, in a way, but not in the way they mean. The suggestion that we need to DRAFT people is in large part a political game being played against the Bush administration.

It also reflects the fact that we've had our military on a near-starvation diet and that needs to change. The question is, change in what way?

There is a lot of force augmentation we can do and are doing with technology, and more we could do by being willing to pay for a larger volunteer army.

Technology doesn't remove the need for boots on the ground, as my colleagues in green uniforms regularly remind me. But it can remove the need to use people for a lot of monitoring tasks and in some cases for defense and attack as well.

Examples: UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) now beginning to monitor the border with Mexico, as well as UAVs used for recon and surveillance in Iraq and Afghanistan. The initial use of this equipment has validated their effectiveness and helped develop doctrine for their use. We now have UCAVs (armed UAVs) being deployed ... first the ad-hoc creationof UCAVs via arming Predators, and more recently, successful tests of models that were designed from the frame up for that purpose.

In a world where the operator of UAVs and UCAVs is sitting a ways away from the battlefield, but must both know military doctrine and tactics well and also exercise quick and knowledgeable judgement, it is quite likely a mid-career person sitting at those commands. The operators of UGVs (unmanned ground vehicles, such as the robots that did recon in Afghan caves) typically need to be closer to the action, but again, the use of the equipment is a force multiplier. Instead of sending in a squad of men, we use a piece of equipment and 1 soldier as operator.

Within 5 years we will have UAVs and UGVs with sufficiently sophisticated software that they will be able to operate without a direct human operator, if desired.

Rex, if you're not mobying, then I can only assume that your position comes out of ignorance of these facts.

Finally, like Deacon Blues I'm 52. Women were not allowed to serve except in very limited capacities when I was a college grad - I did do the Army's college junior program, but was discouraged from trying for a commission on the grounds that I would be bored and frustrated with the opportunities then available.

I did marry a man, now 50, who was a career USAF officer. We both now teach at West Point.

Some of us 50 yr olds not only did serve, we continue to do so in other ways.

Posted by rkb 2004-06-26 8:25:17 AM|| 2004-06-26 8:25:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 One last point.

We both now teach at West Point.

And do so at rather lower salaries than we have earned and could earn elsewhere.

That is not a complaint - it is a choice we freely and gladly made.

Posted by rkb 2004-06-26 8:30:51 AM|| 2004-06-26 8:30:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 I am not Fifty and already did 20 years in the Armed Services. OS has is right! We do not need or want a consript Army. It we closed some bases and redeploy some units there would be no manpower shortage. If they want to add 20k fine but lets fill it with people who want to be there.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2004-06-26 9:44:58 AM|| 2004-06-26 9:44:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 That 20,000+ troops slot isn't for draftees, is it? If it's "more slots for volunteers", all good. And at last check, I thought that the brass were stringently anti-draft ...

P.S. I consider WND and NewsMax to be the right-wing version of Jihad Unspun and al-Jazeera.

Posted by Edward Yee 2004-06-26 10:22:37 AM|| [http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2004-06-26 10:22:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 I think the Administration would be open to serious criticism if they didn't have contingency plans for all sorts of occurances.

If, for instance, we found ourselves under sustained terror attack or an intended insurgency at home and the 1st and 5th Armies were called out onto the streets for defense, perhaps a draft would be needed. [Not a scenario I've heard any military people discuss, just a random brainstormed possibility.] Or a huge natural disaster, here or in a neighboring country, that would lead to potential major instability and refugee flows. For situations like this, more bodies might well be needed and the training aspect would be less critical than simply the number of boots on the ground.

Plans should be in place for all sorts of things, on the very unlikely chance that they would be needed.

That's not the same thing as saying the Administration intends a draft.

BTW, back to rex's rhetoric. I'm curious, rex -- how have you served?

Posted by rkb 2004-06-26 10:31:51 AM|| 2004-06-26 10:31:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 We do not need a draft because we do not need to man 735 bases around the world. What does being the world's policeman have to do with patriotism? Instead of 18 year old males[females will be kept out of combat of course], why don't we send 50 year old males? They are reaching the end of their lives, they are less productive members of society, and they will soon be a drain on our health system. Actually 18 year olds represent our future. They should stay home. Are you still interested in the draft, #4, if 50 year olds are sent instead?

Sign me up baby!! Where the f*ck is my rifle??

Posted by badanov 2004-06-26 10:50:08 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-26 10:50:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 Badanov -

Actually, your rifle is right here:

http://www.odcmp.com/

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2004-06-26 11:48:28 AM|| 2004-06-26 11:48:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 rex has a hardon against Wolfowitz and facts aren't going to change any of it. Draft is Charlie Rangel's trial balloon to try and kill the military, not save it. Our Dem politicians (and Moby fan Rex) would rather have power than a secure nation and successful foreign policy

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-26 11:56:11 AM|| 2004-06-26 11:56:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 This draft nonsense is the last hurrah of babyboomers trying to recall the "glory days" of their youth. They are upset because it is very difficult to develop any kind of protest against a small all-volunteer, exquisitely professional, high-tech military. Most of these fools were the poly sci and ethnic studies majors and can't understand anything more technical than how to operate a TV remote. They want to take the military back to 1969 so they can all start to protest against something they think they understand. A few of the smarter, more pernicious ones want to weaken the military by making it spend its money on useless draftees.

As Old Spook says, the military has no use for draftees. Draftees were only called for two years. Not enough time to be trained to be anything but cannon fodder on a modern battlefield. It is our policy to kill the enemy's cannon fodder, not try to match it with our own. It gets down to dollars. In an era of constraints, the military would rather spend the money on better weapons than on draftees (cannon fodder).

Posted by RWV 2004-06-26 1:30:45 PM|| 2004-06-26 1:30:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 RWV - re: your comment on another thread - I bet my neighborhood (Santee) can kick yours ;-)

Lotsa Marines here (from Miramar)

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-26 1:34:09 PM|| 2004-06-26 1:34:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 The only draft going on right now is the NHL draft, and based on the ratings nobody in America cares.

Posted by Chris W. 2004-06-26 1:56:18 PM|| 2004-06-26 1:56:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 I do not have a "hard one" against Wolfowitz. I think he is an incompetent, like George Tenet, and should be fired. He looked at the war in Iraq through the eyes of an academic, and relied on second hand information about the situation in Iraq from ex-pat sources like Chalabi. When Chalabi was disgraced and forced to walk away, so should Wolfowitz have met the same fate.

Wolfowitz has given the war effort in Iraq no direction. Since Tommy Franks retired[whom I admired greatly btw and Tommy Franks is a Jew as well in case I am accused of being anti-Semetic as is the typical response to any criticism of Mr. God Wolfowitz], the direction in Iraq has been rudderless, reactive rather than strategic and more so day by day. Quite frankly I resent that an academic like Wolfowitz who has no experience with fighting in a war ever should be putting our young men in harm's way based on "theoretical ideas of how things should have been" instead of how they are. I further resent that Wolfowitz should be left in a position to implement the draft and to put even more young men in harm's way because he has no courage himself to take full responsibility for his poor performance.

Wolfowitz offers the general public nothing but shrugging of his shoulders whenever he is cross-examined by elected politicians. I do not believe that Wolfowitz should be protected from criticism about his incompetence and his obvious failings because he is Jewish. His religion did not get him his job in the defense department; his promise of results did. Therefore, sinse his job performance has been sub par, his religion should have no bearing in letting him keep his job.

Some of you want to know if I have fought in a war, no I haven't, but I have tremendous admiration for those who have served and continue to serve. And as a side note, I would never apply for a job in the Defense Department to be Rummy's assistant BECAUSE of the fact I have never served in the military, whereas Wolfowitz did not think that kind of experience was necessary. He was a professor for gosh sakes. What does he know about warriors and war?

As for why I do not want the draft, I come from a large family and I have nephews who would be eligible and I am a parent myself and consequently I would hate to see any of them dragged into a draft and into a war that is steadily turning into an open-ended mess because some people at the top have no clue about how to get out of the mess, because the ending is not written in an academic textbook.

I am aware that Rumsfeld has gone on record a number of times that he does not want the draft. I recognize that a draft would not be good for the morale of the volunteer enlisted troops. In fact, a draft might be hazardous to volunteer troops' health because of the incompetence introduced by a draft. You do not have to convince me that a draft is unwise. Duh.

But yesterday, against Rumsfeld's wishes, Congress [both parties] voted more money to recruit 20,000-39,000 new positions in the course of 3 years. Where do you think Rummey is going to get that many volunteers to fill the positions that Congress[both parties] are forcing him to fill? Any ideas?

I would suggest that even with increased pay for military jobs, the pay still stinks in comparison to safe stateside jobs. And at a time of war, there are not going to be 30,000 young people signing up to fill poorly paid wartime jobs. You are dreaming if you think otherwise.

And I am not a MOBY, whatever that means, but I am very concerned about the increased violence, the increased anti-American sentiments in Iraq, and quite frankly the muddled shrugging of shoulders that's associated with the Defense Dept, which is now resembling the muddled thinkers at State Dept.

And as a side note, another thing that bugs me to no end is that the Selective Service is naming women to fill the draft boards to the tune of 50-50 percent. Why should women, who are not allowed to serve in combat anyways, have any input whatsoever into life and death decisions affecting only males ie. sons, nephews, brothers and husbands be sent to armed conflict????? That peeves me off something fierce, because I'm sure every Feminazi with hair on her legs is running, not walking, to apply for all those draft board positions.

Posted by rex 2004-06-26 2:17:28 PM|| 2004-06-26 2:17:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 rex, at the risk of sounding blunt and crude, your entire post above is pure SHIT.
You have no reasons to hold the views you do about Wolfowitz, the Pentagon or the success of the War other than what the Leftist Media has told you to believe.
In the past 2 and 1/2 years, the U.S. has liberated 2 countries and 40-50 million people with fewer than 5,000 KIA (I'm guestimating) total.
Most of those we've liberated are grateful to us and know their lives are infinitely better than they were before we came.
Further, the winds of change and reform are blowing through the neighboring countries that harbor IslamoFascist killers.
Every country that pursues a WMDs program has been put on notice.
And there hasn't been another major terrorist attack on this country since 9/11 (Pray to God and knock on wood.).
And yes, women can too serve in combat areas!
(How do you think we got Jessica Lynch, Lynnie England and poor deceased Lori Piestawa?)
Read RB a lot more and listen to the MainStreamMedia a lot less!
Almost everything you hold to be true about our current situation is not.

Posted by Jen 2004-06-26 2:31:02 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-26 2:31:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Jen: In the past 2 and 1/2 years, the U.S. has liberated 2 countries and 40-50 million people with fewer than 5,000 KIA (I'm guestimating) total.

The American KIA number is less than 800. The enemy KIA number may approach 100,000.

Jen: Most of those we've liberated are grateful to us and know their lives are infinitely better than they were before we came.

This is a good side effect, but the major effect of Afghanistan and Iraq is that Muslim countries are devoting a lot more effort to clamping down on terrorists, leading the terrorists to bite the hand that feeds them. Would al Qaeda be attacking the Saudis and the Pakistanis if these countries' rulers were as accommodating as they had been in the past? Does anyone think that the Saudis and the Pakistanis are cooperating with the US of the goodness of their hearts, where they had consistently brushed off US requests in the past? Why have Malaysia and Indonesia kept al Qaeda operatives in detention where they had indicated that they were scheduled to be released - and had repeatedly ignored American requests in the past? Because Afghanistan and Iraq constitute a promise to them that if anything happens as a result of that release, the rulers in power will either spend their time hiding in caves or chained up in prison orange for years to come.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-06-26 2:44:07 PM|| 2004-06-26 2:44:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Terrific points, Zhang Fei!
Thanks for, in effect, getting my back.
rex's remarks were such baseless lies--that he states as if they were all "givens"-- that I got so upset I literally couldn't think very straight!

Posted by Jen 2004-06-26 2:49:02 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-26 2:49:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Frank G #20

Shoot, your high school couldn't beat La Mesa on a good day.

Posted by Tobacconist 2004-06-26 2:53:17 PM|| 2004-06-26 2:53:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 ;-)

Posted by Tobacconist 2004-06-26 2:56:58 PM|| 2004-06-26 2:56:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 A draft is NOT needed -and it would only serve to RUIN the professional military we have now.
OS, why do you think the Democrats would want to push for it? Then they could get their quagmire and be able to blame the Republicans for it.

Posted by The Doctor 2004-06-26 3:11:14 PM|| 2004-06-26 3:11:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Read the article for crying out loud, before you blather. The money allotted to build troop level has bi-partisan support.

As for your amore for Wolfowitz, Jen, that's sick. He's married and his incompetence will bring down the WH. I don't lie and I do not believe left wing press. I am probably twice as conservative as you on most issues. I just don't have a crush on Wolfowitz.

Posted by rex 2004-06-26 3:19:39 PM|| 2004-06-26 3:19:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 "Rex," military recruiters I've talked to have said that they have more than enough volunteers for however many new slots actually get funded.

BTW, because of budgetary reasons, they're laying off a couple tens of thousands of sailors from the Navy over the next couple years.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2004-06-26 4:13:35 PM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2004-06-26 4:13:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 rex, I see nothing to even hint at Wolfowitz's incompetence.
Since you seem so convinced of it yourself....
Got proof and links?
All I see are 2 successfully run military campaigns.
And you're just going after Wolfie, then next will by Rummy, followed by Bush.
So at last do you reveal yourself to be on the Left side of the street?

Posted by Jen 2004-06-26 4:47:25 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-26 4:47:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Rex, you are full of horsesh*t. I cannot put it more plainly than that.

First off, you call yourself Conservative? You are not that, you sound more like a bigot wrapping himself in conservative mantle - you are pathetic and should go back and play with the Larouchies and John Birchers and get back to griping about the Bilderbergs and trilaterals. THat seems to be about the intellectual capacity that you have.

First and foremost: We sustained a far larger Army, Airforce, Navy and Marine Corps not even 10 years ago. A TRUE conservative would have know this from the years of Ronald Reagan.

Secondly, A TRUE conservative would have the faith Reagan did - the faith that our young men and women will step foreward in enough numbers to fill our armed forces when we ask them to.

Third, a TRUE conservative doenst rely on the politics of destruction and personal hatred that you espouse.

THe military:

ALL VOLUNTEER. Despite trips to Haiti, Kosovo, Somalia, Kuwait rotations, Korea, and other beauty spots in the world.

Tere will be no trouble filling the slots.h

Secondarily, you come across as a know-nothing who simply hates Wolfowitz - tagging you as a "neocon" basher.

The direction of this war has beenrun by Rumsfeld, not Wolfowitz.

And as for "academics" being irresponsible, and "not having fought in a war" being a disqualifier, I guess you agree more with Kerry, after all he was in Vietnam. I guess you would have disqualified Marshall from being in charge of post-war Europe.

As for performance, the intelligence community has been pretty bad, not the executives. And I work in Intel. Given manpower, budgetary and political contraints, I challenge you to find ANYONE that could have done any better.

Your idiotic "No professor can do anything with war" is as supid down deep as it is on the surface. Are you really that STUPID? I guess you are since you keep harping on the point. On the birght side, it is good that such a screwjob as you precludes yourself from DoD work - I'd hate to have someone of your subpar rational capacity working for me.

Such idiocy should preclude you from any further commentary, yet you dig your hole deeper.

The response to 9/11 and the takedown of the Taliban, the roll across Iraq, and now the democratization of a region that hasnt seen democracy EVER - those are big accomplishments.

Remember - the Marshall plan didn't kick in until 1947 - yet we already have a functional (albeit at a low level) free market economy, they are taking first steps toqrd self governance, they hav e a stable currency (something Germany and Japan did not have post-war for a few YEARS).

Is everything perfect? No! No war nor occupation EVER is. Thats the nature of war: Its chaotic - which pathetic wanna-bees like you seem to forget every time you get a political objective in your sights.

Sorry Rex, grow up. The world is not a perfect place - but the people we have have made the best of an imperfect situation. And people like you are doing nothing but mipping at the heels and trying to tear them down while they are getting the job done. And as a combat veteran, intelligence operator and current "consultant", I dont care about credentials, its results, and Wolfowitz is getting adequate results when you compare thim to the alternatives.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-06-26 4:50:28 PM|| 2004-06-26 4:50:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Very interesting thread, even w/o Aris stirring the discussion. Keep up the good work.

Posted by Anonymous5089 2004-06-26 5:50:46 PM|| 2004-06-26 5:50:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Tobacconist - my kids'
High School (Santana) and shoot....um, we try not to use those in the same sentence ;-) But we did take Grossmont...heh heh

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-26 6:06:42 PM|| 2004-06-26 6:06:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 No bet, Frank. I'm pretty sure that your Marines could take PB anytime they want. Although I suspect that Oceanside and Camp Pendleton get the bragging rights.

Posted by RWV 2004-06-26 9:25:57 PM|| 2004-06-26 9:25:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 granted....

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-26 9:34:09 PM|| 2004-06-26 9:34:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Old Spook, I believe in sequential thinking and not in emotion. I don't have "faith" in politicians. I judge them by results. Afghanistan was a good and necessary campaign. Iraq was not. The mess in Iraq is no reflection on the military. It is a reflection on the folly of the people who thought that Iraq could be all sorts of things without having any facts to support their giant leaps in assumptions. We are not getting any bang for the buck with the Iraq War, simply put, and if that makes me a "bigot"[do you even know what that word means?]and a member of La Rouche and John Birch society in your addled mind, then I think it's time you retire from the military. You are not thinking clearly.

It was foolish to undertake 2 large campaigns at once, especially when the campaigns were 2 unweildy amorphous shape changing thingeys called War on Terror and War of Liberation. Say what???

Also, it is not only me who sees Iraq as a worrisome black hole of energy and resources with no completion date in sight. Just 2 days ago an article was posted here about Israel and the Kurds moving closer to one another as allies because neither group liked what they were seeing in Sunni/Shiite Iraq. If you would like to send your expert opinions to Sharon and to the Kurds' leader per what you spouted at me, I'd be happy to find their email addresses for you. I am sure they would be impressed with your insights about those who criticizes the mess in Iraq.

You may think you were a success in Intel, but here's a tip your obvious lack of debate skills hardly give you any authority to call my opinions "horses**t" or to berate me as a bigot. Stick to what I say, not what you pretend I said.

As for you ,Jen, and your hysterical, hormonal ravings at me - my advice is to get a life. It may be a calming influence for you.

Posted by rex 2004-06-26 11:21:12 PM|| 2004-06-26 11:21:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Nice try Rex - but your arguments do not hold water - meaning you are a LIAR when you say you believe in "sequential thinking" (as opposed to Rational Thought).

And yes, you are a bigot - you make emotionally charged accusations, and back them up with about as much proof as Michael Moore.

Then you accuse anyone that challenges you of doing the same things you are doing. You also ignore ALL facts that counter your poorly held viewpoint.

ANd You are darring Sharon and Israel in, in a lame attempt to draw attention away from your original contention, which was completely demolished.

As for "getting a life", I have a very full one as a husband of more than 20 years, father to my son, Deacon trainee in my Church, intelligence worker, conservative and Republican - and a Torofecundian of long standing (I smell bullshit like yours miles away).

Unlike you, who apparently do not even have the time to think about what you post or back it up with facts.

Rex, your trolling is becoming boring - and youa re starting to exhibit all the classic signs: cahncing the topic, not listing any facts, claiming opinion as "fact", renaming terms ("sequential thinking"), etc. Combine that with your glaring lack of ability to reason even the simplest things like how the Army will fill its ranks wiht more volunteers (ASTOUNDING piece of ignroance and pessimism on your part).

I am beginning to suspect you are a very clever troll trying to smear conservatives.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-06-27 12:14:27 AM|| 2004-06-27 12:14:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#39 Look OldSpook, no offense, but I make very good arguments and you, unfortunately, are good at bluster but not at debate. I am not a blind faith political idealogue. I value results.

Unbeknowns to people like you who do not read anything that may challenge your smug certainty that the better man will win the Presidency in November and that Muslims most assuredly value freedom and democracy because you value those ideals, GWB is barely holding his own with Kerry, a shadow of a man, who even Democrats do not like or respect. Think about it, OldSpook. GWB is the incumbent and should have had the advantage of that position but the Iraq War is descimating the lead he should have had against a lacklustre John Kerry candidate.

Call me a bigot, call me a troll, call me anything you please but you are not going to change the fact that people like you are in a state of denial. GWB may lose the election because Iraq is a mess and someone in his cabinet has to take the fall or it will be GWB that takes the fall in the November election. Right now if Al Queda caused a major incident in the USA, we are to stretched too thin with our troops and National Guard waging 2 wars abroad to be able to respond in a satisfactory fashion here without implementing a draft. And if that happened, you can tra-la-la all you want about your love for GWB, but here's what would happen-not only would GWB not be re-elected but a Republican President would not occupy the Oval Office for many years to come. Kapeesh? No one would tolerate the bad judgement of a President that required the re-institution of the draft.

So stuff all your hate filled paranoia about me, whom you don't know from Adam, and start concerning yourself about the person who should take the fall for the Iraq War, so GWB and the Republican Party can survive this unfortunate miscalculation.

Postscript: thank you for sharing your personal details, I guess??? but like why?? Is this discussion devolving into some kind of AA meeting or something?

Posted by rex 2004-06-27 12:46:05 AM|| 2004-06-27 12:46:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#40 hmm I was tending Rex till Old Spook came on the scene.

Old Spook's winning me now

but it's true i like factual debate and i'm getting sick of the whole you're a troll! epithet. it's good to have other ideas onboard.

Posted by Anon1 2004-06-27 11:12:45 AM|| 2004-06-27 11:12:45 AM|| Front Page Top

17:53 Frank G
17:47 Mrs. Davis
17:32 lex
17:25 Mrs. Davis
17:23 Anonymous6473
14:36 Bomb-a-rama
22:02 Zenster
14:16 .com
13:59 Aris Katsaris
11:51 Frank G
11:39 Aris Katsaris
11:12 Anon1
10:58 Jen
10:52 Aris Katsaris
10:45 Jen
10:36 Aris Katsaris
10:15 Anon1
10:08 Larry Everett
10:05 Shipman
10:04 Jen
08:25 Aris Katsaris
08:22 Aris Katsaris
05:32 Bomb-a-rama
04:06 Anon1