Supporting The Troops
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in War — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Once upon a time, when generals spoke out against the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq, they were lauded by all and sundry as great and noble figures with the courage and the military experience to speak truth to power--or tyranny, if you prefer.
Now, General David Petraeus has come to the United States, said that the surge can work and is working, and he gets this:
Howard Zinn, a leftist scholar, said debate about Petraeus's role is not surprising: "When I listen to Petraeus, I hear the generals of Vietnam assuring us that they are winning. Generals are not independent thinkers. They serve the political goals of the administration. We can't expect independent, honest assessments of the situation."
Most of the article is like that, quoting the Zinns of the world with very few counterquotes backing Petraeus. Generals and admirals will surely take note and realize that their military expertise, greatness and nobility will only be lauded as long as they hew to a party line preferred by the bien pensant community. If they stray from that party line, woe unto them. Their names, their learning, their reputations and their experience will be trashed beyond all recognition.
This is "supporting the troops." This is "caring about the military." I wonder then what it means not to care.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Defending Petraeus — Comments (44) »
Supporting The Troops 3 Comments (0 topical, 3 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
In point of fact, in Vietnam, we were winning. The problem was not "Vietnam" - just like today the problem is not "Iraq" - the problem is here in the US and it looks like Howard Zinn and John Murtha and Chuck Hagel and Harry Reid, etal.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Zinn, Murtha, and Hagel served in the military--Zinn in WW2 and the latter two in Vietnam.
Yes, Zinn is a socialist academic, but our government elementary, secondary, and post-secondary schools are natural habitats for thousands of folks who fear the marketplace. Murtha and Hagel have a right and an obligation to check the authority of the President--if the entire Congress was intended to rubber stamp the White House, then it should be disbanded.
If we really wanted to "win", we would employ the Michael Savage solution and flatten the cities and civilians of Iraq with our superior firepower. The Brits attacked civilians in Dresden in WW2, while the U.S. fire-bombed Tokyo, burning women and children alive by the thousands.
I don't support that approach--I think the best we can do is get a time of relative calm, get out, and wait for the next Mid-East dictator to emerge. I don't share the President's sunny optimism for the region--it runs contrary to history.
I have never experienced the horrors of war, perhaps you have, but I respect these guys' right to oppose military conflict they feel is unnecessary. Perhaps they had life-changing experiences when serving their country in combat ...
"The only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history." -Patrick Buchanan
They so desperate to relive the "hippie" days they stumble over themselves with examples of how it is the same. I can only assume they used so many drugs that they are literally still in the 70's. I am quite sure the drugs were the reason they cannot remember the slaughter that occurred once we left.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion