House Iraq Resolution--what will it do?

POSTED BY: Causal
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 01:41
VIEWED: 4088
PAGE 3 of 4

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

CAUSAL

Monday, February 19, 2007 6:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Or it could be that the country is saying, "Given the past performance of this group of civilian leaders and their stated goals there is zero chance for success in Iraq. Our troops have done the best they could but they have been let down by their leaders. We will leave Iraq without successfully completing the mission that this administration set forth. The only question is whether we leave now or many years down the road and how much more our troops will be required to sacrifice for failed leadership."

Yeah, the rational part of me knows that this is exactly what is being said. Believe me, my brain knows it. But in my chest beats the heart of a serviceman, and there is nothing more important to the honor of a serviceman than accomplishing the mission. If we go down in flames in Iraq (or just pull out quietly), I'll be scarred pretty deeply. I'm immensely proud of my military service; I feel like I did something important. But with the ever-more likely failure of the mission in Iraq, and the beginnings of doubts about Afghanistan, I begin to feel like I really accomplished nothing at all. And for someone to whom service is so important, that feeling is, needless to say, like a slow poison in my soul.

Quote:
There is no way to win this war, given the people we have in charge, without destroying our soul as a country. The mission was impossible in March of 2003. The mission is impossible today. It will be impossible in January 2009 when the next President takes office.

Again, on a purely intellectual level I get that this is most likely the case (except for maybe that second sentence). But again, mission: get the job done or die trying. I feel dishonored: I could have sacrificed more, could have done another tour, could have re-enlisted for another four years--I could have tried harder for success. I suspect that impulse is something non-veterans can't understand. But I feel that my honor is soiled--we're failing and I'm not doing a damned thing about it.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

SOUPCATCHER

Monday, February 19, 2007 7:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Yeah, the rational part of me knows that this is exactly what is being said. Believe me, my brain knows it. But in my chest beats the heart of a serviceman, and there is nothing more important to the honor of a serviceman than accomplishing the mission. If we go down in flames in Iraq (or just pull out quietly), I'll be scarred pretty deeply. I'm immensely proud of my military service; I feel like I did something important. But with the ever-more likely failure of the mission in Iraq, and the beginnings of doubts about Afghanistan, I begin to feel like I really accomplished nothing at all. And for someone to whom service is so important, that feeling is, needless to say, like a slow poison in my soul.

...

Again, on a purely intellectual level I get that this is most likely the case (except for maybe that second sentence). But again, mission: get the job done or die trying. I feel dishonored: I could have sacrificed more, could have done another tour, could have re-enlisted for another four years--I could have tried harder for success. I suspect that impulse is something non-veterans can't understand. But I feel that my honor is soiled--we're failing and I'm not doing a damned thing about it.

I hear what you are saying. When historians get around to writing about this time I hope that there is general consensus that one of the greatest sins of the Bush administration was precisely that: That they took the most powerful military in the world and ordered them to complete an impossible mission that was not beneficial at all to the defense of the United States.

Which doesn't do a damn thing about what you're feeling now.

FREDGIBLET

Monday, February 19, 2007 7:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Again, on a purely intellectual level I get that this is most likely the case (except for maybe that second sentence). But again, mission: get the job done or die trying. I feel dishonored: I could have sacrificed more, could have done another tour, could have re-enlisted for another four years--I could have tried harder for success. I suspect that impulse is something non-veterans can't understand. But I feel that my honor is soiled--we're failing and I'm not doing a damned thing about it.

I'm sorry that you feel this way and I wish there was something I could do about it. The truth is that this failure does not fall on the troops, the troops have done as good a job as can be asked of anybody, the failure belongs to the leaders who chose a war that many people in the know knew could not be won, the failure falls to the Iraqis who refuse to work together for the good of their own country, the failure belongs to the extremists who are willing to sacrifice anyone and everyone for their narrow-minded goals, the failure falls on the civilians whose obsession with oil made the Middle East worth paying attention to. I hope that you and any other veterans who feel the same can come to understand that the failure is not your fault and in no way reflects on you.

CAUSAL

Monday, February 19, 2007 7:59 PM

Fred, SC, thanks for the kind words. I really have no idea how many other servicemembers feel the same way. Perhaps it's just me. I guess my real hope is that we'll never get treated like those poor VietNam vets did. Even if we ultimately fail in Iraq, I hope we don't have to go through the same nightmare those poor guys did.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

FREDGIBLET

Monday, February 19, 2007 8:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I guess my real hope is that we'll never get treated like those poor VietNam vets did. Even if we ultimately fail in Iraq, I hope we don't have to go through the same nightmare those poor guys did.

You won't, we know enough these days to seperate the troops from the war. Most of the people I know think the war is a huge mistake, but none of them have anything but respect for the troops. The only people that are being assholes to the troops that I'm aware of are the Westboro Baptist people, and they're just nuts so you shouldn't take them too personally.

YINYANG

Monday, February 19, 2007 8:15 PM

There is no right answer - not with the resolution, not with Iraq, not with the War on Terror. There are just a lot of wrong answers. And, it's understandable that the people directly involved in the offense - the service men and women - feel bad about that. I feel bad about it, and I'm still not old enough to vote on any of this stuff. It's a situation with two options: bad or worse.

We stay, our guys and gals are either fodder for suicide bombers or they develop serious psychological issues (physical death or, for lack of a better word, spiritual death). We leave, the entire region is immersed in a blood bath. It sucks, and nobody should like it. Congress can do very little about it except stop the cash flow, and they probably don't like it. Any rallying action Americans can pull together would A) do nothing or B) do something (but, of course, there are no good somethings).

The only okay course of action that I can see is to lift out all the innocents (how does one identify innocents, much less retrieve them all?) out of the Middle East and take all the foreign troops with them. Unfortunately (for the U.S. mostly), that would leave the oil to the different radical groups, so they would have a constant supply of money until they ran out.

The way I interpret the resolution is this: "We don't have much more of a plan than this administration, but we need to make our stance official - both for ourselves and our constituents. Whether we like it or not, we need to take care of what we can, and the best way we can see to do that is to bring the troops home. We know that they would fight this loosing battle for as long as we still wanted them to (bless their souls), but we don't have the heart to continue this. What's coming may suck, but we have to try something."

Rules and voting: http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=22892

GINOBIFFARONI

Monday, February 19, 2007 11:11 PM

I think it is a foregone conclusion that history will pin the failure of both these missions on the Political leadership involved. Bush, Clinton, BushII, and all the others in a supporting cast.

Enough senior military leadership steped up and voiced both concern and outrage over the feasibility of the objectives and resources put into play, the only thing that could have caused any other conclusion would have been success...

KANEMAN

Tuesday, February 20, 2007 12:18 PM

If the dems really didn't support this war, if they really wanted to pull out, if it wasn't just a bunch of lip service to their tree-hugging limp wristed constituency...couldn't they just DE-FUND the war? Don't they control the purse strings? Just a thought........

MALBADINLATIN

Tuesday, February 20, 2007 3:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I think it is a foregone conclusion that history will pin the failure of both these missions on the Political leadership involved. Bush, Clinton, BushII, and all the others in a supporting cast.

Bush1? What? for not going in and taking over the country when he was there? And Clinton...to blame? Educate me please, seriously, I'm not being sarcastic.

"You can believe your eyes...or you can believe me." -Groucho Marx

FREDGIBLET

Tuesday, February 20, 2007 5:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Malbadinlatin:
Bush1? What? for not going in and taking over the country when he was there? And Clinton...to blame? Educate me please, seriously, I'm not being sarcastic.

I don't know what Gino thinks but here is what I have heard about the blame for those two.

Bush 1: Blamed for not taking out Saddam in Gulf War 1, nevermind that he thought that an invasion would be a costly and unwinnable mistake (he has been proven correct)

Clinton: Blamed for the post-Somalia air-power-only doctrine, supposedly making us look weak and lacking commitment. Never mind that a raging LAND war in Afghanistan should have shown commitment and strength.

Once again, I don't know Gino's position, these are just what I have heard.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE