Staying the course is being misrepresented. As in all wars, they change and so has this one. No one knows what their enemy is up to until they face him on the battlefield and then adaptions have to be made. Or, as was said in a movie years back, “Improvise, adapt, overcome.”

As I read at the Multi-National Forces in Iraq web site, I can see where changes are being made as needed to strengthen the Iraqi Forces and defeat the insurgents. “Staying the course,” although a catchy phrase, is actually nothing more than “completeing the mission.”

I applaud you for your service in the First Gulf War. However, had the CINC finished the job, perhaps we wouldn’t be fighting them today, two World Trade Center attacks may not have happened, the USS Cole may not have been attacked, the Khobar Towers as well as the two Embassies may not have been attacked either.

Then again, had the Democratic Party let us fight and finish what we were doing in Viet Nam years earlier and not abandoned them in 1975 when the North violated the Paris Peace Accords and Saigon fell to Communism, perhaps these little tin horn Islamofascists wouldn’t have decided we were really nothing more than the Paper Tiger China accused us of being.

As for me, I was too old to reenlist for the First Gulf War and defintely too old to go back in now, I did my time in Viet Nam, 1969 to 1971, Central Highlands, 3 more in Germany, in time for the 1972 Olympics and the actions of the Baider/Meinhoff Gang and came close to being deployed to Israel in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War (2nd ACR, we were pulled back from field manuevers and put on standby). I then did 3 more in Ft. Bragg before becominig disillusioned under the Carter Administration and allowed my enlistment to run out.

With 4 grandsons now, I prefer to see this fought over there and completed as much as possible before they become of serving age or before they face these insurgents on our own streets.

Who said anything about cutting and running? That is the problem with the debate, I can’t bring up a contrarian position without being attacked under a false premise.

The last time that I looked, the FISA law had provisions to do exactly what you suggest regarding terrorist communication. Why is that an issue? Are red herrings the best we can do here?

Our tax dollars have been paying for “news reports” out of Iraq. I hope there is good news to be reported, but my guess is that between the legitimate press and the paid marketers, there isn’t much to report. I wish I was wrong, but I haven’t seen much evidence to support that. If there is a lot of good news, why is it not being heard?

I agree with you that we should look inward, that is my point. If our policy is not working, we should adapt it rather than attack those that disagree.

What have you done to support the troops? Do you have familly or friends who are in service? I am a veteran of the first Gulf War and I thank God that we had a sensible CINC at the time who understood what it was like to serve. We must support our troops with the best planning, the best equipment and we must oppose war profiteering. We owe it to them to make sure their mission is clear and we support every effort to succeed. Saying “stay the course” doesn’t cut it.

If you want to fix things, look inward first and determine just what you are doing to support or oppose the actions. That might be the best starting point.

We have serious issues in Iraq and debating “he said/she said” about the run up is counter productive. I know that it makes everyone feel comfortable to point out that Democrats were just as ignorant as Republicans on the threat posed by Saddam, but really, what difference does it make? I want to know how we’re going to prevent unneccessary American military casualties and restore our moral standing in the world. Is ripping Clinton all we have to talk about on the right wing blogs?

-MF

http://thomas.loc.gov/r105/r105s09no7.html

There are some statements contained in it that sound remarkably like what George Bush has done and Kerry now opposes.