[Grovenet] Cheap shots -[was] first wood-stove heat of the season

[David Morelli]

On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:29 AM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> Of course! What's your point?
>
> I'm glad that Osama made the list, since he's the only actual  
> threat the USA has faced from that part of the world, although Iran  
> is trying hard to join him.
>
> But any member of the US military from commander to private who  
> believes in a military solution to Iraq and who isn't greatly  
> concerned about the choices any Democratic president will make has  
> to be nuts.
>
> If the Dems don't blow this election (like the last) and we put a  
> Democratic President in office, that President will most likely  
> run, not walk toward the nearest exit from military involvement in  
> Iraq.
>
> I can't imagine who in the military or the general public who  
> believes we should pursue a military victory in Iraq is happy with  
> that prospect.
>
> I can't imagine anyone in the military, whether they believe in a  
> military solution or not, being happy with the whole Iraq war,  
> especially if we suddenly bail out of Iraq. In that sense it will  
> be Vietnam all over again.
>
> If I believed in a military solution to our world-wide problems,  
> I'd be very much afraid of those three people myself.
>
> Ron D'Eau Claire

My point?  You told a joke that put an American Senator and an ex- 
First Lady into a common pot with the symbol of world wide Islamic  
terrorism.  You would demean Democratic presidential candidates with  
this joke, presumably to further the political chances of the  
Republican presidential candidates.

You speak as if the Democratic candidates have weakened our standing  
in the "War on Terror", and that a skilled military person would be  
afraid of their leadership.

Reality check.  We were attacked by Saudi funded Islamic militants  
based out of Afghanistan with the tacit approval of the Taliban  
government.  We responded, with wide international support, with a  
war in Afghanistan, that we almost won.  We almost had a military  
solution in Afghanistan.

But the Republican Administration with the full and complete approval  
of the Republican Congress and the support of the Conservative media  
turned their back on winning the war on terror in Afghanistan, turned  
against hunting down and taking to task the perpetrators of 9/11,  
turned against cutting of the source of funding for international  
terrorism, and turned against rebuilding Afghanistan into a  
functioning democracy.  Completion of that military action and  
rebuilding a stable progressive nation in Afghanistan could have  
overcome decades of damage by their war of independence from Russia.   
And it would have told the world what America stands for, not just  
what we stand against.

We said that we would get the plotters of 9-11 and that we would  
rebuild Afghanistan.

We could have won in Afghanistan, not just gotten vengeance.  We  
could have shown our mettle and our ideals.  We could have shown that  
America's interests were in stopping Islamic terrorists and building  
stable democracies as alternatives to rigid theocracies.    Instead,  
we showed the world that we are interested in cheap oil.  We will  
tolerate any indignity, suffer any pain, inflict any damage, so long  
as we have access to cheap oil.

-----------------------------------

The Republican version of a "military solution" in Iraq, is to hold  
out long enough to pass the blame for failure unto the Democrats.   
The Democrats version of a "military solution" in Iraq is to gain  
control of Congress and the Presidency in 2008.  The soldiers,  
sailors and aviators who die between now and then are just  
"collateral damage" to both of them.

To me, a "military solution" involves a solution provided by military  
action, generally this means that the other side surrenders and our  
side declares "victory" and comes home.  This was the expected result  
of the Iraq invasion.  Remember?  It was advertised as "Mission  
Accomplished!"

Who seriously believes that an American "military victory" is  
possible in Iraq?  We don't even have a military opponent to beat.   
We face a growing number of civilians who are part-time guerrilla  
soldiers.  We face an undefined war zone with porous borders.  We  
don't have the option of demanding an "unconditional surrender",  
which means that IF any victory is possible, it will be political in  
all or part.  Our military is fighting a holding action until a  
political solution can be created.

We certainly have brave and honorable soldiers who will give 100% to  
the military effort in Iraq.  They were put there by an  
Administration that believes in "a military solution to our world  
wide problems".  I give our military people in Iraq credit for enough  
intelligence to know the difference between the current "holding  
action" in Iraq and a true "military solution".

David