US troops were grumbling Friday at retired General Tommy Franks' prediction that soldiers could be stationed on Iraq's boiling desert plains for up to four years.
... "Whether that means two years or four years, I don't know," said Franks, a former head of the US Central Command who led the war that ousted Saddam Hussein in April.
... That kind of sinks morale a little bit," said one young female private who was guarding the US base on the western edge of Ramadi, a town in a Sunni Muslim belt west of Baghdad where violence against coalition troops -- and the Iraqis who work with them -- has flared into a daily danger.
"I don't wanna be out here for that long," she told AFP from her gunner's perch atop an M-113 armoured personnel carrier.
Now, here's what the Neocons who sent these fine young men and women have to say to them and their loved ones back in the world:
I think the level of casualties is secondary. I mean, it may sound like an odd thing to say, but all the great scholars who have studied American character have come to the conclusion that we are a warlike people and that we love war. . . . What we hate is not casualties but losing. And if the war goes well and if the American public has the conviction that we're being well-led and that our people are fighting well and that we're winning, I don't think casualties are going to be the issue.
Michael Ledeen
AEI Breakfast
March 27, 2003
I think the American people are going to have great tolerance for the war taking longer, and they are going to have great tolerance for more casualties.
William Kristol
AEI Breakfast
March 27, 2003
And that's just sick. Accept Casualties. Never. Remember that neither one of these miserable, pretentious fucks could ever be bothered to have served. But they can sit there sucking up caffeine and cholesterol at some Think-Tank Breakfast and casually spend the lives of men and women, over a fucking lie told by a miscreant liar.
posted by Jo Fish on 07.12.03 at 01:45 AM
Comments:
It's a pity we don't have a free press that would be happy to inform the masses just what their self-appointed Masters have planned for them.
posted by: Lurch on 07.12.03 at 09:05 AM [permalink]
Jeez, you would think that these uniformed ingrates would be completely enthused about implementing the dystopian vision of dishonest freaks like Kristol and his PNAC/AEI cohorts.
On a related note, the recent polls (sorry, no link) indicate that American dissatisfaction with the current level of casualties has gone above 50%. A slow awakening from a deep coma?
There seems to be this idea that US troops will leave Iraq at some point, and it seems to me that is a misreading of what the US does.
For instance, After the Spanish American war, US troops are still in Cuba, and spent 90 years in the Phillipines. After WWII, US troops are still in Germany, Italy, and Japan. After the Korean War, US troops are still in Korea.
The contrary examples are Vietnam, Mexico, Grenada, Panama, the Domincan Republic, Nicaraugua, and several others I cannot remember.
The point is that if this Iraq adventure turns out well, it is likely US troops will still be there for a very, very long time.
posted by: etc. on 07.12.03 at 01:09 PM [permalink]
A big part of why they can get away with things like this is that, unlike during previous wars (WWI, WWII, Korea, etc.), members of Congress do not have sons or daughters on active duty in the military. ONE out of 535 (House + Senate) members has a son or daughter on active duty. These are people who are not as heavily invested in the number of casualties that result. There have been a number of retired officers, veterans groups, and organizations of family members who have spoken out against the Iraq campaign, the way in which it has been conducted, or the management of the occupation. These are people who are invested in not just the outcome but the casualty count that results.
Isn't the US lucky that so many chickenhawks were able to duck Vietnam so that they could be alive and prosperous to lead us now in our time of grief. If it were not for them, surely the sky would be falling. So in their own way, these chickenhawks performed a public service by ducking the draft. They just knew that they were born leaders, but not at the front lines. Sure, many of them prospered financially. But what if they weren't here to lead us? Would leaders with military experience be able to better lead us politically than George W and his band of chickenhawks? Or would those with military experience better understand the risks and costs of war before starting them?
posted by: Shag from Brookline on 07.12.03 at 05:45 PM [permalink]
