Posted on 01/01/2006 8:03:21 AM PST by SJackson
Sometimes, only The Onion gets it right.
The Madison-rooted satirical weekly finished off the year with a headline that summed up the unspoken reality of 2005. The headline read: "U.S. troops draw up own exit strategy."
It appeared above an article that began: "BAGHDAD Citing the Bush administration's ongoing refusal to provide a timetable for withdrawal, the U.S. troops stationed in Iraq have devised their own exit strategy."
A fictitious Staff Sgt. Cornelius Woods tells the newspaper, "My Marines are the best-trained, best-equipped, most homesick fighting force in the world. Just give us the order, and we will commandeer every available vehicle to execute a flanking maneuver on the airstrips of Mosul. By this time tomorrow, we will have retaken our positions at our families' dinner tables in full force."
At the end of a year that saw the U.S. death toll in the war rise toward 2,200, and the toll of wounded go to more than 10 times that number, there is still an assumption on the part of much of the media that the U.S. military is enthusiastic about this war. There is also an assumption that the withdrawal of U.S. forces would be difficult.
Both assumptions are wrong, as any serious examination of recent events will confirm.
When Vice President Dick Cheney, perhaps the most ridiculous cheerleader for the war, visited Iraq just before Christmas, he was confronted by the reality of frustrated troops. Even in the highly controlled context of a meeting between carefully selected soldiers and the vice president, the first comment to Cheney came from Marine Cpl. Bradley Warren, who said, "From our perspective, we don't see much as far as gains. We're looking at small-picture stuff, not many gains."
Of course, Cheney was not listening, as his over-the-top attempt at delivering an applause line to the troops indicated. When he growled, "We're in this fight to win. These colors don't run," not one of the troops clapped, not one of the troops cheered.
But some other officials have been listening, and recognizing the reality on the ground.
One of the few members of Congress who went to Iraq and actually spent serious time with commanders and their troops, U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., changed his position from one of supporting the war to one of supporting a quick withdrawal.
So The Onion was not far off the mark with its imagining that U.S. troops in Iraq would want to devise an exit strategy.
Nor was The Onion's imagining of a plan to get the troops out of Iraq at a very rapid rate unrealistic. Indeed, one of the worst failings of most major media in the United States has been the acceptance of the Bush-Cheney line that there is no easy or smart way out of the mess they got our troops into.
Murtha's call was met with cries of complaint from arm-chair warriors in Washington who said it would be impossible not to mention "disastrous" to exit the quagmire. Yet Murtha, a decorated Vietnam veteran with close ties to the Pentagon, has devised a plan to get all the troops out of Iraq in six months, and he echoes the view of many military strategists who say that the faster U.S. forces and their allies leave, the faster Iraqis will step up to their policing responsibilities and the country will begin to stabilize.
So, as we end another year in which the media generally got the story of the war in Iraq wrong, we tip our hat to The Onion for imagining dramatically more accurate coverage of the conflict than that from most of the major broadcast and cable television networks, talk radio and all too many newspapers.
When did he support the War?
ping
Anyone concerned about Darfur, Cambodia, Bosnia or Ruwanda need only look to their own heartless government.
LOL! I love it. If anyone lacks a major sense of humor (or hubris) it's The Capitol Slimes.
The Onion has their Best of 2005 edition on line. Totally hillarious. Check it out!
http://www.theonion.com/content/
Gee, I don't know. Ship's in harbor are safe, but that's not why ships are built. When I was in the Army, I understood that we were essentially unproductive, that our utility was only potential, not realized. What good is an Army that will not fight?
If you make the argument that the Army only exists to defend United States territory, junk all the aircraft carriers and most of the Navy and Air Force, and three quarters of the Army. All we need is a few divisions on the leaky southern border, armed and ready to shoot, a few Boomers, a few squadrons of strategic bombers and interceptors.
Oh, btw, say good bye to Israel.
…Murtha, a decorated Vietnam veteran …
South Korea, Taiwan, democratic Iraq, etc.
Or a non-nuclear Japan. Germany, maybe even Switzerland, would go nuclear without a U.S. umbrella, as well.
Amazing. Not one factually accurate statement in the entire article.
Short on Humor. Long on Hubris.
Good ad slogan...
Very, very good! Luckily, I'm a lawyer; I just copyrighted it so you're out of luck. (Just kidding!) :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.