Posted on 06/02/2005 11:39:05 PM PDT by churchillbuff
Two years into the war in Iraq, as the Army and Marines struggle to refill their ranks, parents have become boulders of opposition that recruiters cannot move.
Mothers and fathers around the country said they were terrified that their children would have to be killed - or kill - in a war that many see as unnecessary and without end.
At schools, they are insisting that recruiters be kept away, incensed at the access that they have to adolescents easily dazzled by incentive packages and flashy equipment.
A Department of Defense survey last November, the latest, shows that only 25 percent of parents would recommend military service to their children, down from 42 percent in August 2003.
"Parents," said one recruiter in Ohio who insisted on anonymity because the Army ordered all recruiters not to talk to reporters, "are the biggest hurdle we face."
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
In World War II, about 10,420,000 Americans, or about 7.45% of the entire nation's population, were in uniform.
Today, about 1,470,000 Americans, or about 0.566% of the nation's population, are in uniform.
It isn't surprising, therefore, that it's much less likely for a Congressman or Senator to have a child in uniform - it's much less likely for anyone to have a child in uniform.
I was for concentrating more manpower and firepower against al Quada in Afghanistan
We essentially killed all or mostly all of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan; the remaining fighting there is mostly chasing bandits around in the Khyber Pass area adjoining the lawless frontier of Pakistan. Concentrating more manpower or firepower in Afghanistan wouldn't do much, and wouldn't have done much in 2003.
Instead, we've essentially built a giant bug-zapper in Iraq, drawing our opponents in from all over the world to fight our soldiers. Creating a battleground in Iraq has saved us a lot of effort fighting Al-Qaeda in East Africa, in Indonesia, in Southeast Asia, in Yemen... and in the United States. Better that guerillas should fight the United States Army in somebody else's country, than the NYPD in midtown Manhattan.
In addition, the administration's long-term strategy is this: our opponent is Islamic fundamentalism, which is essentially a product of the Wahabi faction in Saudi Arabia. Fundamentalism is growing rapidly more popular in the Arab world, because of the collapse in popularity of the competing idea: Arabic nationalism, or Baathism. (Essentially an Arab version of fascism, begun by Nazi agents who tried to turn the Middle East against the British during the Second World War.) Baathism is dying out - the last Baathist states were Syria and Saddam's Iraq. The restless Arabs are looking to Wahabism to guide them instead. Al-Qaeda is a coalition of militant Wahabi groups.
By creating what amounts to a modern democracy in Iraq, the Bush administration hopes to create an attractive alternative to Wahabism: becoming part of the Western world. Hence the need to invade Iraq and overthrow its government, in order to shock the Arab world by providing a fresh alternative to either stale fascism or radical Islamism. So far, the strategy seems to be successful - the great success of the Iraqi elections in January and the so-called "Cedar Revolution" in Lebanon demonstrate that the Arab world is coming to terms with this new idea.
The Wahabis, who aren't stupid, are trying their hardest to defeat this project, by sending in as many militants as they can get their hands on, to fight the Americans in Iraq and to try to frighten the Iraqi populace. They are supported in this endeavor by Syria (who still holds out hopes for Baathism) and Iran (who hope to keep Iraq weak and unstable, and thus maintain their position as the strongest Persian Gulf nation).
As I said in my first post, a niece of my wife is headed to Iraq - via Air Force. Another niece of my sister (through husband) is going somewhere in middle east, also through air force. Query: Why can't either of the Bush girls put on a uniform? Even Queen Elizabeth deigned to do so in WWII. (when she was still a young princess)
"MY military service and family stake."
Never understood why this is relevant to the arguement....
Uh, remember Osama - - - "dead or alive" ???? He did 9-11 and we don't have him. It hardly makes me a "dove" to think he should have been our top target, not Saddam.
What is your suggestion on how to deal with Islamic extremist?
probaly hunt them down in the countries where they are and kill them ala the afghanistan operation. though i consider some of the results of the iraq conflict to be great successes, it wasn't exactly an al qaeda hunt there to begin with - which should have been the focus all along.
---
What is your suggestion on how to deal with Islamic extremist?
No. 1: Border control. The 9-11 guys were here on expired or irregular visas. A "war on terror" that leaves our border open is a joke. Like fighting crime in the hood by going a block away for a rumble, while leaving the windows and doors of your own house wide open.
Yes, I remember him. We destroyed his power base in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, and have reduced him to an essentially powerless fugitive in Pakistan. Good work by our military.
He did 9-11 and we don't have him.
This is a vague, CNN-style simplification. The 9-11 attacks were planned and executed by the Al-Qaeda organization, not by Osama Bin Laden himself. OBL was the head of Al-Qaeda, which we have spent the last three and a half years carefully dismantling. OBL's immediate circle has been severely disrupted, and his lieutenants in Pakistan are being picked off. Zarqawi is now the effective head of AQ, and we have drawn him into a situation where he is running around Iraq trying not to get shot by the Marines, rather than directing terrorist attacks from a cave in Afghanistan. Again, good work by our military.
It hardly makes me a "dove" to think he should have been our top target, not Saddam.
He was our top target. That's why we invaded Afghanistan only a few months after 9/11, and Iraq much later.
Trying to fight the War on Terror as the War on Osama Bin Laden would have been like trying to fight the Second World War as a constant series of commando raids to try to assassinate Hitler.
You may wish to read my post #21, by the way - it helps to explain what this "dubious military adventure" is actually about.
I am sorry but you have been a freeper for almost as long as I have but you don't seem to be aware of what Iraq has been doing? I don't understand, why are you not aware of what Iraq has been doing?
please elaborate for us ;) i'm not on this forum very often
---
I am sorry but you have been a freeper for almost as long as I have but you don't seem to be aware of what Iraq has been doing? I don't understand, why are you not aware of what Iraq has been doing?
We all agree with you there but what about taking the war to them?
Well, how did the Israelis do it? With a border wall. Yet we say we're fighting a "war on terror" and we let illegals stream across our borders unmolested -- and law-abiding citizens who try to stem the tide are denounced as "vigilantes" I don't believe we're really fighting a war on terror - - at least not one that any intelligent strategist would map out, because a real war on terror would start by securing the home borders.
That's a waste if our border's open. It's NOT true that "we all agree with you." The president doesn't -- he's leaving the border open.
"I suspect a lot of these hostile parents have come around to my way of thinking; they don't want to lose their kids for such a dubious military adventure."
It may or may not have been dubious at the outset but at this point it seems like we do not have the option to withdraw and give the country over to Al Queda. To do so would hand a huge victory to militant Islam and almost certainly ensure a much larger and more deadly battle in the future. We are at war and we need to win, defeat is not an option. What else is there to say at this point? Do you want some shiny stars next to your name for your foresight?
You appear to be under the impression that Mexico is controlled by Muslim fundamentalists.
1. We know saddam helped finnance the WTC attack of 93.
2. We know saddam was trying to purchase nuclear equipment.
3. We know he had the most sophisticated Anthrax lab in the world.
4. We know he helped finnance the attack of the USS Cole
Some of what you say is correct. However, I believe that the admin is too PC. They always say a GWOT. Thats BS. Why don't they say a war on Islamic fundamentalist extremist. Thats what you suggest they mean, but they never say it. Is that not who we are fighting?
Do you suggest we leave Iraq now since we have all the terrorist right where we want them? Is the long term strategy to allow the terrorist in Iraq and then leave without defeating them? Do you suggest we allow a new country of Iraq to defeat the terrorist there while us, the most powerful country in the world cannot(we can put politics is in the way)? Why leave the country if thats where all the enemies are.
Ok I agree with you. But I still think we need to take the war to them.
Clearly you have an agenda, and I won't change your mind.
I think the action against Iraq was a strategic neccesity. We removed one of our major enemies in the region. It puts our forces in the center of the middle east giving us a base of action against most of the hostile countries in the area. It's sucking jihadi's in like a magnet so that the can be killed by the thousands by our military. As a bonus if Iraq emerges as a functioning democracy it will act as a catalyst for change in the hell hole of the world.
Finally, what would you have proposed as an alternate strategy, leaving Saddam in power?
Churchillbluff hates the military and George W. Bush, in that order.
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.