US troops call for Iraq pullout

POSTED BY: GinoBiffaroni
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 1, 2006 12:12
VIEWED: 6865
PAGE 5 of 5

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5

GEEZER

Monday, October 30, 2006 12:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
http://www.appealforredress.org/
More than 200 men and women from the United States armed services have joined a protest calling for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, organisers say.

The soldiers said they did not think it was worth their while to be in Iraq and questioned the use of repeated tours of duty.

The campaign, called the Appeal for Redress from the War in Iraq, takes advantage of defence department rules allowing active duty troops to express personal opinions to politicians without fear of retaliation.

I got a little curious about an organization with a Washington D.C. PO box for an address, a Washington State phone number, and no names listed as officers, founders, members, etc.

Google listed 31,700 hits for "Appeal for Redress". Most were similar to te Reuters article. One was this: http://www.mudvillegazette.com/milblogs/2006/10/27/#006854

Quote:
Yesterday, a company that does public relations for the liberal activist political action committee MoveOn.org, Fenton Communications, organized a conference call for reporters and three active-duty soldiers to unveil the soldiers' anti-war group Appeal for Redress.
...A staff member at Fenton Communications who requested anonymity said his company was approached last week by a longtime peace activist and former director of the anti-nuclear proliferation front known as SANE/Freeze, David Cortright, to publicize Appeal for Redress. Mr. Cortright is now president of an Indiana-based nonprofit group, the Fourth Freedom Forum, and his biography on the organization's Web site says he helped raise "more than $300,000 for the Win Without War coalition to avert a preemptive attack on Iraq in 2002–03."

Without going into the motives behind Appeal for Redress, or suggesting that this type of spin resides on one side only, it seems to be less a grassroots movement and more a contrived media event.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 1:42 AM

Quote:

And at what point do we stop owing? If the situation is still "imminent violence", but 95% of the population wants all foreign troops to leave, should we do that?

I suspect we should probably do whatever brings that violence down, one step at a time. I suspect that would mean redeploying to borders, and to internal ethnic boundaries, and to guard reconstruction projects and official govt. offices, police, etc.

Some people think a pull out would be the answer, I think that someone would have to prove that that would reduce the violence of the situation.

imho

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 1:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
FMF,
"Actually, the oath they take is something like this: I (name) do solemly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegience to the same...etc, etc..."

Ah semantics,

This means what? They will protect their country as the President and Congress sees necessary. Shit defend the constitution, come on. We have Supreme court justices who can't agree on what the constitution is, means, or contains..never mind 340,000 soldiers deciding and defending it...The rest of your post I agree with.

It is not semantics when the point of the post was to state that they (the military) do NOT take an oath to defend this country. They take an oath to defned the constitution. Big difference. And I never said they decide what that means, but the general public needs to understand that there is a difference.

As for agreeing with the rest of my post, now I have to go read it to see where I could have gone wrong.

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

ZISKER

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 2:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

I suspect we should probably do whatever brings that violence down, one step at a time. I suspect that would mean redeploying to borders, and to internal ethnic boundaries, and to guard reconstruction projects and official govt. offices, police, etc.

Some people think a pull out would be the answer, I think that someone would have to prove that that would reduce the violence of the situation.

imho

Roger, but the fact is that they're already trying to do that and the troops are stretched too thin. My analysis of the situation is that the military will not be granted the resources it needs to fully "reduce the violence of the situation" simply because we were never given the resources we requested to begin with and now we're very far behind the power curve. And it's not because of anything the Army is doing, it's because of the way that the civilian government ordered us to war (ex. Rumsfeld v. Shinseki).

Now, all "best intentions" aside, eventually the government is going to go "to hell with it" because they know that they want an Army around for the next time something comes up. And the truth is that between the back-breaking deployment schedule (and let's be honest, not a one of them will ever try a draft over Iraq. It'd be political suicide and the public would never stand for it) and benefit slashing, retention is getting harder and harder. Recruiting is a problem as well, but the destruction of the professional soldier core due to demands that can not be justified is, in my opinion, the biggest problem facing the Army right now. Because, as many are quick to point out, we are all volunteers - but that doesn't mean we'll volunteer over and over for this kind of treatment. When you spend thirty months out of thirty-eight months in the military deployed in a war zone . . .that makes most people think twice about trying to go career.

It's more likely that the government will withdraw the Army (declaring victory, I'm sure) from Iraq not because peace and stability has been established, but because the military has been exhausted along with the budget. Politicians are far too pragmatic and masters of the fine art of self-preservation to allow sentimentalism about the state of a people whom they will never see face-to-face to overcome their "long-term" visions and goals.

But, hey, what do I know?

If you can't do something smart, do something right.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 3:37 AM

Zisker,

sure. i see that. i think it would take allies. i think upping us forces straight would be a mistake because some desk jockey would divert them to iran or syria to start a new war if the force got large enough. Besides, as you said, unlikely scenario.

earlier i suggested bringing in iran as an ally, which wasn't actually my idea, one of our generals in the field came up with it, and the iraqi govt, our command and some guys from iran started discussing it and the desk jockeys and agenda monkeys killed the idea.

If the iraqi forces got up there, they could help, but that's not going to happen because the recruits weren't sufficiently guarded, and got attacked, and now no one wants to sign up, understandably. at least, that's how it appears from here.

i don't share your optimism that there will be no draft. I think the dems might do it, they keep failing to promise not to. But it will be a subdued draft, like you have to sign up to get welfare or pell grants or something. but i think a draft will also be a disaster. just as it would be great to have 500,000 guys to complete the mission, it would be a disaster to have some loon send them into iran to attack a nuclear site or something. and a draft is a blank check, it can become millions.

I think part of the problem is that the civilian leadership is finding too much for the military to do and not staying focused. given the set of circumstances, they should have narrowed in on one thing, like 'kurdistan' rather than all of afgh, iraq, with an eye on syria, iran, missions over pakistan, talk of africa, lebanon, NK. It's overkill. I take the argument "saddam was a threat to the kurds," sure, is a fine one. focus would've helped. shoulda woulda coulda though, we're where we are now.

you make some very good points. i think this all goes back to aristotles rants about why democracy is doomed back some 2500 years ago. It probably *could* work, but not the way it is now.

Picture a scenario like this: what if the govt. was allowed to determine the agenda, but it ended there. Like the guys in washington said "we want to displace saddam hussein and replace him with a democratically elected govt" and that was as far as they could say, and then the military got to decide the how why and when of what they should do to accomplish that goal. would that work?

KANEMAN

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 3:52 AM

"i think this all goes back to aristotles rants about why democracy is doomed back some 2500 years ago"

What should we do smart ass? I'll sit here with my hand on my puss 'till you come up with something better than our democracy...really, what? I know what you really want, you coward...say it!!!! You are, as Soupcatcher said.."full of shit"..You are all about the conspiracy...sucks to be you...or your parents...Well, it's true......

ZISKER

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 9:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Picture a scenario like this: what if the govt. was allowed to determine the agenda, but it ended there. Like the guys in washington said "we want to displace saddam hussein and replace him with a democratically elected govt" and that was as far as they could say, and then the military got to decide the how why and when of what they should do to accomplish that goal. would that work?

The military is only supposed to determine the tactical ways to accomplish that mission. In Iraq, that would have been:

1. Remove Saddam from power.
2. Secure the country so he can be replaced with a democratic government. (And, if we're pretending it's March 2003, locate and neutralize WMDs)
3. Support further specified actions to accomplish the end-state of a democratic Iraq.

At that point, the State Department steps in with their plan (which they had been working on for years, but got thrown out a month before the invasion by Rumsfeld and the Dept. of Defense) and the military supports it. In return for ordering the military into action, the government should give the military the support it needs.

Would it work? Well, as it hasn't happened I wouldn't know. I believe it would have gone a lot better if the Army had been permitted to deploy the initial number of troops it deemed required to secure the country.

But I will bet you my next two paychecks that there will be no draft. The civilian population would not support it and the military DOES NOT want it. The protest movement of the Vietnam-era would look like child's play compared to what would result from an Iraq Draft.

Democracy (or any democracy-based system) is doomed where ever people are not willing to work for it and defend it from those who would bastardize its system (which is highly susceptible to manipulation) for their own benefit. And no, I don't mean "defend" in the military sense. Of course, America has never been a democracy in the literal sense, which is probably a good thing. Aristotle was writing about a form of government very different from our own. But that's an entirely different discussion and we've rather gotten off topic.

Back to my original point: If the troops who fight and suffer for the war want to protest, so long as they are doing it legally, they have every right to do so and I support them in exercising their rights as soldiers. If civilians can whine about what a crappy day they had at work, then somebody who's been in a war zone can darn well say they don't think it's worth it.

If you can't do something smart, do something right.

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, November 1, 2006 4:48 AM

zisker,

I don't doubt the will of the iraqi people to preserve their democracy. They were pining for it long before we got there. They've wanted it since 1919. The danger is that some *other* outside force will support a non-democratic or anti-democratic movement in iraq if we pull out. There are a fair number of powers in the world capable of subduing iraq who will do just about anything for oil

ZISKER

Wednesday, November 1, 2006 12:12 PM

The reality of that situation does not address the fact that the Army is incapable of sustaining this level of operation for much longer. And that America will not conduct nor support a draft. Nor should it. But as this has gotten entirely off-topic, PM me if you want to continue this chat so we don't flood the board.

If you can't do something smart, do something right.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5