[Grovenet] Is This Why The "Support Our Troops" SignsDissappeared

Sat Dec 23 09:12:57 PST 2006

This is not hate mail, but I (and I suspect a lot of other people) would like 
to know just what is meant when you (and the Administration) say "kick their 
butts and get home." The problem seems to be that no one knows just whose 
butt we're kicking, much less when that will have been accomplished! I'm 
looking for a reasonable explanation of our "strategy" over there. So far, I 
haven't heard any other than the failed "strategy" of intimidation. That 
"strategy" seems to be losing the confidence of the Iraqi citizens even 
faster than the confidence of the American public.

On Saturday 23 December 2006 09:30, muriel Gordon wrote:
> Well I am not sure where you are seeing cars but, on my vacation this year
> we went from Oklahoma to New York to Montana, Wyoming, Nevada and  back
> home, all points in between, the signs were everywhere. We will always
> support our troops! Yes maybe more troops is the answer, all I know is what
> is going on over there right now is not adequate, when talking to family
> and friends over there they agree. If they need more they would know. Now I
> don't need any hate mail I am just stating my opinions. We need to kick
> their butts and get home. What happens after that is their own. Muriel
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Meredith Bliss<mailto:mbliss at agora.rdrop.com>
>   To: Forest Grove local interests list<mailto:grovenet at rdrop.com>
>   Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 10:48 AM
>   Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Is This Why The "Support Our Troops"
> SignsDissappeared
>
>
>   Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the strategy in Iraq seems to be
> based on the notion that having a lot of soldiers patrolling the streets of
> Baghdad (and elsewhere) will intimidate the "insurgents" sufficiently so
> that they will go into hiding. If you subscribe to this notion, then the
> idea of sending more troops to be even more intimidating makes perfect
> sense.
>
>   On the other hand, we learned long ago in this country that random police
>   patrols were a waste of resources: unless you have a patrol car going by
>   every location in the city every five minutes, the intensity of patrol
> has little or no impact on crime rates. And of course, no one would want to
> foot the bill for that sort of police presence. What does work to some
> extent is targeted patrol and interdiction, and all of the strategies of
>   problem-oriented / community policing.
>
>   What we have in Iraq seems to be an unlearning of those lessons, and most
> of what is accomplished by the troops is just providing a target for the
> "insurgents," much as the Redcoats provided targets for Colonists in this
> country 230 years ago. What's that expression about learning from history?
>
>   Meanwhile, little to no effort has gone into training Iraqi police forces
>   which have become little more than tools of the various tribal factions.
>
>   Six years ago, we were unknowing participants in a political "paradigm
> shift" when a new contingent of folks came into power with the mantra that
> we do not respond to reality, we create our own reality. We are now living
> through the fruits of that terrible fallacy, as an attempt to force our
> reality upon an unreceptive world is nearing collapse. No one in Washington
> has a "solution" to the mess we've created in Iraq, but the consequences of
> this catastrophe will be far reaching. I don't see how anyone can believe
> that more of the same will create anything but more of the same. The
> Administration may just be hoping that enough more of the same will stave
> off the final collapse until after November, 2008.
>
>   Proving once again that "may you live in interesting times" is a curse,
> not a blessing.
>
>   On Thursday 21 December 2006 09:45, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:
>   > I heard it on the radio the other day and started looking around
>   > myself. It's true. Almost all of those little plastic "Support our
>   > Troops" ribbons have disappeared from cars everywhere!
>   >
>   > Then I see this in the today's news:
>   >
>   > "Soldiers in Iraq urge Gates to send more troops"
>   >
>   > "(Secretary of Defense) Gates had breakfast with U.S. soldiers to hear
>   > their views...
>   >
>   > "Sir, I think we need to just keep doing what we're doing," Specialist
>   > Jason Glenn told Gates.
>   >
>   > "I really think we need more troops here. With more presence on the
>   > ground, more troops might hold them (the insurgents) off long enough to
>   > where we can get the Iraqi army trained up."
>   >
>   > None of the soldiers present said U.S. forces should be brought home,
>   > and none said current troop levels were adequate."
>   >
>   > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061221/ts_nm/iraq_dc_16<http://news.yahoo.
>   >com/s/nm/20061221/ts_nm/iraq_dc_16>
>   >
>   > But there seems little support for that idea at home.
>   >
>   > My, oh my. How times have changed.
>   >
>   > Ron D'Eau Claire
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > _______________________________________________
>   > GroveNet mailing list
>   > GroveNet at rdrop.com<mailto:GroveNet at rdrop.com>
>   > http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet<http://www.rdrop.com/mai
>   >lman/listinfo/grovenet>
>
>   --
>   ----------------------------------------
>   Just happy to be here, but speaking
>   only for myself!
>   Meredith Bliss --- www.rdrop.com/~mbliss<http://www.rdrop.com/~mbliss>
>   ----------------------------------------
>   _______________________________________________
>   GroveNet mailing list
>   GroveNet at rdrop.com<mailto:GroveNet at rdrop.com>
>  
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet<http://www.rdrop.com/mailman
>/listinfo/grovenet> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

-- 
----------------------------------------
Just happy to be here, but speaking 
only for myself!
Meredith Bliss --- www.rdrop.com/~mbliss
----------------------------------------