Why The Coming Fight On Iraq Starts Now

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 12:43:29 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

This is why:

I know my wife hasn't seen the following headline yet, or there'd be one hell of an angry, angst-ridden email in my inbox: Oklahoma National Guard to Deploy to Iraq in 2008
It seems that my brigade has been given a warning order to prepare to deploy to Iraq in 2008, about six months after I get home. I don't know if it's the full brigade, or just the parts that haven't deployed recently, but with the new change in army policy, I could conceivably go home this summer and turn around next January and go to Iraq.

Lovely. Just f**cking lovely.

. . . And if I thought that my current deployment would make me less likely to go on this new one, boy did I have another thing coming:

About 85 percent of the soldiers in the 45th Infantry Brigade already have served combat deployments, most in Iraq or Afghanistan. Two of the brigade's units are deployed now. The 1st Battalion, 180th Infantry is in Afghanistan, and the 245th Engineer Company is in Iraq. Wyatt said these soldiers will have the experience that comes with being combat veterans, but he said it will also cause additional stress. "We understand we're asking the families and employers and soldiers to deploy again," Wyatt said.

Erm, Ya think, Sir?!?

I don't know if I'm going to have to go or not. I damn sure ain't volunteering.

Wyatt said he has pushed the Army to put the brigade on alert and issue mobilization orders as soon as possible to allow commanders access to additional equipment and other resources the troops will need. He said he hopes official orders will come in by the end of February. Body armor and some weapons are in short supply to Oklahoma Guardsmen, as National Guard units nationally have shared their resources to equip troops deploying to combat areas.

. . . I will not volunteer for this mission, but if ordered to go, I will go. I know that there are those out there who would have me go AWOL or refuse to deploy.
I cannot do that. I owe too much to these young men whom I promised I would lead and protect. I do not believe that all war is wrong, so I cannot honestly petition to be a conscientious objector. I also do not believe that just because I hate the president I have to right to refuse to live up to my oath. I'm not a conservative, after all. I have a family to feed, and soldiers to take care of. I can do neither from prison.

I just hope that neither I nor one of my men are the last to die for a mistake.
Lovely. Just fucking lovely.

< The Coming Fight On Iraq Starts Now | Another Terrorism-Related Acquittal >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Why The Coming Fight On Iraq Starts Now | 22 comments (22 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Surge is like throwing (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by squeaky on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 12:55:25 PM EST

Gasoline on a fire. The troops are being used as political fodder to cover for Bush's inability to accept defeat.

Damn right, we need to end this now. These men have more honor in their fingernail clippings than Bush's whole family tree.

A analysis released today by the Congressional Budget Office shows that the administration, in its public comments, has vastly underestimated the actual number of extra troops that will be deployed to Iraq under the president's "surge" plan.
The administration's estimate of approximately 21,000 extra troops only counts combat units, according to the analysis, and because combat units require support forces, the actual number of additional troops who will be in Iraq will likely exceed 35,000.

TPM

OK National Guard (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by dorothy on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 02:02:28 PM EST

The 45th is my Dad's history. I remember when my Mom made him get out because she was afraid they would be sent to Viet Nam. They were called up in Korea. I believe they were the only National Guard group called up during that war. Mom was sure that meant they would want the remaining combat veterns in Nam. I don't think they ever went there. It breaks my heart that they are being so misused. The National Guard is to protect the homeland - not the oil.

: Dorthy (none / 0) (#4)
by Wile ECoyote on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 02:14:33 PM EST

I you go here
You can see 43 National guard units were called up for Korea.

Yea, I saw that diary over at DKos. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by kindness on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 02:52:02 PM EST

Good stuff.

What I find really heartening is how so many different sources are starting to point to the obvious. That is that everything bushco is doing right now is a prelude to war with Iran. Not that war with Iran makes me glad, to the contrary, it horrifies me. While I don't particularly think highly of the Iranian Prime Minister, the Iranian people are not my enemy. Even if the MSM refuses to call these steps what they are, it's us in blogistan who will help bring this to the front.

Stop 'em now, before they get the chance to do any more damage to the US people and our interests than they already have.

I guess (none / 0) (#2)
by Wile ECoyote on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 02:02:18 PM EST

the highlighted part is by Big Tent for emphasis. After spending 24 plus years in the military, every unit is short items at one time or another. During '86 with the escorting reflagged tankers, we would have to add personnel to the ship each trip up into the gulf and then on the way out of the gulf, we would transfer them to another ship on the way up the gulf. We did about 15 trips for five months. Happened each time.
Weapon system- the Phalanx system is routinely switched between ships for deployments. The mounts are removed from ships returning from deployment and given to ships headed out on deployment.

Odds are now the units to deploy in 2008 are short items. If, in 2008 the Ok. NG is still short then, I will be the first to complain.

Fire away!

So the military hasn't gotten any better... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Dadler on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 08:13:25 PM EST

...since you joined almost quarter of a century ago. That doesn't give you pause? Knowing the amount of money spent on "defense"? Complain about the education system all you want, or how much money is spent on social programs, they never paid thousands for items that cost pennies -- much less regularly. That kind of thing goes right to the heart of all that is wrong. It's a direct line between the military industrial complex's graft/greed and the neglecting of actual physical and emotional needs of soldiers.


Nope (none / 0) (#8)
by Wile ECoyote on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 05:26:05 AM EST

I give it no pause at all. I would love for every soldier, sailor, airman, marine and coast guardsman to have all equipment like bullet proof vests, up armorer humvees at all times from the PFC sitting in the Duluth reserve center manning the telephones to the general sitting in Tampa manning the phones to the senior chief sitting in Guam manning the phones, but this have been going on since the country was formed. To give everyone all the gear they may need a year and a half from now would no doubt triple the defense budget. and then the grousing here on this site would be worse.


Wile - You're right... (none / 0) (#9)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 08:34:19 AM EST

in my time the Navy went from the 1 aircraft = 1 crew concept to 1 aircraft = N crews concept for some squadrons/missions because someone figured out that airplanes can be used longer than crews. And commercial airliners are kept in the air almost 100% while swapping crews at various points.

But you will never get the Left to agree or understand.


Why did you slander "the left" there? (none / 0) (#10)
by kindness on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:45:19 PM EST

What do you mean? Are you accusing "the left" of not supporting our military? I'd disagree with you?

So, what's your point?


kindness - A kind reply (none / 0) (#13)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 10:35:06 AM EST

Well, last weekend we had a diasabled vet spit on/at/near him by a demonstrator.

I'd have to call that a lack of support.

On a broader front and remembering the Vietnam war, General Giap himself noted that the demonstrations in the US showed him that the war could be won via political action. The rest, as they say is history.

Since I respect the intelligence of our enemy, I think it plain to see that they have studied and understand what we did in Vietnam, Lebannon and Somali. In fact they have stated that we will not fight in a long term war.

I would also ask you if you think that protests, demonstrations and calls to bring the troops home don't improve the morale of the terrorists in Iraq that are currently killing our troops and innocent Iraqis.

The answer, of course, is yes. They do improve the morale. That is obvious. Seeing citizdens of the country you are fighting call for the removal of the troops you are fighting would have to make you feel better.

I submit that making the terrorists the troops are fighting feel better is not supporting the troops.

No charge for the logic lesson.


kindness (none / 0) (#14)
by Edger on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 10:50:59 AM EST

The so-called "story" ppj refers was and still is a lie that he does his best to further in his oft repeated and transparently infantile efforts to smear his conception of "the left".

The truth of the matter is that the whole thing was and is an ongoing put up job, a real world version of trolling and baiting, which is why he likes the story so much. It brings to the real world his dishonest antics here.


True Edger (none / 0) (#15)
by squeaky on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 11:10:22 AM EST

The spitting incident has become a focal point for ppj. Meanwhile, because of the policies ppj promotes hundreds of thousands are dead in Iraq, and the list of dead and tortured people grows every day.

Spitting on someone is a good distraction from all the death, and very important according to ppj. How many people were at the march, let's say tens of thousands.

One incident, if the story is as was reported, out of tens of thousands of peaceful protesters is a very, very insignificant event given the whole. But for ppj it represents the anti war left. How dishonest is that? Very, very.


Kindness (none / 0) (#17)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 12:49:59 PM EST

Yes indeed, I would never recommend you believe the NY Times. We know they are just so pro war..

BTW - Among other things Edger has said that he wouldn't fight and has expressed opinions that the US Government and Israel had advance knowledge of 9/11. Nothing wrong with having opinions, I just wanted you have some background on him since he seems to want to get into that.

squeaky - So you are now saying that it didn't happen but if it did happen it's okay because it is only one incident....that we know of...

Talk about situtaional ethics... wow.

You know, that frames perfectly your comment:

Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM
Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

Typically Dishonest ppjaka broken record (none / 0) (#19)
by squeaky on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 01:06:35 PM EST

Nice spin. I never said it was OK. I said that to turn this into a cause célèbre to smear the anti-war left is not fair.

As to your non-sequtur regarding my Rove quote you show your dishonest hand again. You repeatedly bring up my quote about Rove in an attempt to smear me. Let's look at how that quote came into being.

I repeated a contention that Rove's grandfather was a Nazi. My point was that it made perfect sense because Rove resurrected Goebells' propaganda techniques. The particular technique Rove is famous for is the smear or character assassination.
My quote, in context, was that Rove never needed proof for any of his innumerable smears so why should I have to be beholden to having any proof when repeating allegations about Rove.

Of course you, leave off the object of my sentence: Rove. In context it reads that:

Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I [be held to a different standard when making allegations about Rove].

Dishonest arguments are what you are known for here. Repeating over and over the same tripe doesn't make it true even if Rove and Goebell's have convinced you otherwise, herr ppj aka propaganda minister of TL.


Squeaky (none / 0) (#20)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 01:33:56 PM EST

My quotation is accurate.

The quotation you show is not. This is what you wrote:

Re: Kozlowski Sentence and Viewpoints (none / 0) (#14)
by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:04 PM EST
Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

You now write:

My quote, in context, was that Rove never needed proof for any of his innumerable smears so why should I have to be beholden to having any proof when repeating allegations about Rove.

To answer your question. Becuase two wrongs do not make a right.

That you do not understand that, and try to use it as an excuse provides further understanding of your comments and actions.


ppj is dishonest as usual (none / 0) (#21)
by squeaky on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 02:28:43 PM EST

Your dishonesty is legendary at TL. Anyone can post a quote out of context with the intention of smearing, but only you do that at TL. It is not surprising that model yourself after Rove and Faux news.

And spare me your empty cliches and slogans:

Becuase two wrongs do not make a right.

This has nothing do to with your repeated smears and distortion of what I said.

My comment had only to do with Rove and it came after quite a bit of baiting from you. Your argument was that I was racist for pointing out the odd coincidence that Rove was German and embraced Goebbels propaganda style and techniques.

That you would use my out of context quote as a banner whenever I correct your BS is weak, very weak and quite cowardly to boot. Rather than address content your MO here at TL is to attack when your distortions and lies have been outed. Everyone has seen it and most here have been subject to your attacks.

It is no surprise that you are not allowed to post a diary here. I don't believe that it is because, as you stated when John Horse invited you to debate, Jeralyn is not gracious enough. It is a source of wonder by many here that you have not been banned altogether from TL.

Try sticking with a topic sometime rather than make personal smears. That is what a troll does.


: Squeaky (none / 0) (#22)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 03:51:38 PM EST

I see that you continue to smear. You don't even know when you do it.
First, I asked TL about it and she indicated that she would rather not. You see, I am what is known as the "opposition" and would probably post things that would be outside the focus of this blog. I completely agree, and am appreciative that she allows me in her blog.
What I find very interesting is your claim that since you will use only this self given power to ignore the truth when smearing Rove, that is not a classic case of "two wrongs don't make a right."
I could provide dozen examples of how wrong that is, but I don't think I need for most folks, and I see no need to try and educate you. Frankly, you make my points better just as you are.
As for attacks and smears..... Just scroll up to Edgers #14 and your #15.
Of course Edger did say:

Anyone who wants me or others to be constrained from saying things that insult so that they will NOT feel constrained from doing things that kill, is trying to draw equivalence where there is none, and deserves absolutely no respect, civility, or any kind of tolerence whatever.
Isn't Edger's comment what you are trying to say?
Your comment was just shorter and more focused.

A big ole monument in the making (none / 0) (#6)
by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 07:46:38 PM EST

We only have 3,100 names now...we have to get at least 10,000 for Halliburton to turn a tidy profit on the Iraq War Memorial.

Kindness (none / 0) (#11)
by Che's Lounge on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 02:04:00 PM EST

Welcome.

We call those folks trolls, because they deliberately try to turn the discussion into ad hominum characterizations of their opponents. Let's see what happens next!

: Che (none / 0) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 12:53:05 PM EST

Trollings???
Aren't the Che who called Bush a gay and after I objected to characterizing someone's actions because of his sexual orientation said you were just messing with me???
You need to shave with your eyes closed.

We'll (none / 0) (#12)
by jondee on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 03:36:24 PM EST

just call 'em Christ-killer haters from now on; how 'bout that, Jim?

One Note Jonny (none / 0) (#16)
by squeaky on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 11:25:01 AM EST

May 24, 2002
Rumsfeld: No Plans to Invade Iraq
The United States has no plans to invade Iraq or any other country, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Friday, but he refused to discuss the Bush administration's thinking about how to deal with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
February 2, 2007
Gates: We're "Not Planning" To Attack Iran
With respect to Iran, first of all, the president has made clear; the secretary of State has made clear; I've made clear -- nobody is planning -- we are not planning for a war with Iran.

digby

Same script. Why rewrite it since it worked so well the last time.