Free Republic

"Winning a war of forces was the easy part. stabilizing a broken nation is a task I would want no part of..."

Right you are... but as Gen. Powell said, if you break it, you own it (or words to that affect). The President warned us all that this would be a long struggle. He was right but I wish we'd kept our focus on Osama.

"Am I in danger?"

Only if you commit a capital crime Sender. Otherwise, you're in the clear (no pun intended ;).

"To be honest, I do not know if these folks over there can handle freedom like ours."

I agree. Their society is such that they will have a very hard time accepting the results of any election. I think that will be the biggest challenge for them. Hopefully they'll get it right... we'll find out soon enough.

"One further reason for sticking in Korea was,..." "They have an ingained dislike of any use of military power." "...not understanding how this"video-game" stuff corrodes..."

Good morning. Excellent points, all.

"Even if it is vital to our national security,..."

The sticking point there is convincing the people that when we do go to war it is in fact vital to national security, and then maintaining that conviction in everyone's mind (heart, gut) throughout the conflict. When that conviction exists, we always win. Unfortunately, as it concerns the war in Iraq, not everyone is convinced. It's inevidable that our representatives will waffle as they see more of their constituents waffle on support for this war, or any war.

"If we had pulled out of Korea after the Armistice, do you think that the ROK forces could have held off the North?"

No, absolutely not. In fact, I think if we pulled pulled out now and completely washed our hands of Korea, South Korea would be hard pressed to hold them off today. But we've never washed our hands of Korea as we did with Vietnam. My point is it was a national decision, not a party one. The same Democratic Congress decided to hold the line in Korea while they abandoned Vietnam. Call it politics but I believe they represented the will of the people at the time. By then we were sick of war too.

"Did the US military lose South Vietnam?"

No, I said they weren't allowed to fight the war to the best of their ability. You can blame the Democratic Congress at the time for the bloodshed that followed our withdrawl but it is the American people who ultimately made the decision to wash our hands of all things Vietnamese. That includes all the war protesters and the "silent majority". What I find most disturbing about South Vietnam is that after all we invested there, the spark of freedom didn't ignite anything and they layed down for their own slaughter. Unfortunately, I believe the same thing will happen in Iraq after we leave. A thug will fill the leadership vacuum and they'll be back to square one. I sincerely hope I'm wrong on that one.

"We can either kill them or they will kill us. There is no third option."

So, I take it you would rather see us fight this war as if we were really fighting in a war? If so, I agree.

"The left made the military LOSE VIETNAM..."

The military didn't lose that war, they weren't allowed to fight it to the best of their ability (IMO). Much like Korea (and Iraq), Vietnam was not perceived as a direct threat by alot of Americans. If it were a direct threat, all Americans would have been asked to sacrifice for the war effort. They weren't. Why? I think because in Vietnam we were fighting based on a theory (Domino), not a direct threat. I think it's the same now. The theory is if we bring democracy to the Middle East, stability will follow. I'm not sure I agree with the theory. I'm not sure I agree with fighting a war to test a theory. I would rather see our efforts directed toward improving border security and our immigration procedures and use the military to strike down terrorists when and wherever they're located.

"Maybe America isn't worth saving..."

Saving from what? Americans fight best, as a nation, when we are fighting for our survival... we aren't there yet. Perhaps we will be sooner or later and millions of us will die but those of us who remain will prevail. I don't doubt it for a second.

Finally! Some good news! Let's all raise our glasses, please... Here's to the United States of America!

"You can't just support rights when they protect the things you like."

That's the best line I've heard here or anywhere else lately.

"Our guys have the best tech money can buy, and they know how to use it, and are very good at gurilla tactics now."

I would never dispute that our military is the the best manned and best equipped, and the most deadly force on the planet. I just disagree with your numbers. I did a bit of research and could find nothing to confirm or dispute your estimate. DOD policy is to not do body counts and they've pretty much stuck with it. I was in Mosul for the first year of the war and there wasn't nearly as much activity there as in other places so my experience there may be coloring my view of the whole country. However, we did read the daily SIGACTS and I don't remember seeing anything that led me to believe we were killing the enemy in such large numbers. Just my view... thanks for the exchange and thanks for your service!

"You need to understand how the law is written."

I understand that most likely no laws were broken. My main point is that who is going to want to work covertly for our country against their own when they can see that our own government officials can't keep their pie holes shut. I can only see it having a negative impact on our recruiting efforts. Do you agree or disagree?

Also, she may have told "everyone" but it didn't make the news until somebody wanted it to. That's the shame, crime or not.

"Potential recruits already have scenarios like..."

Thanks. Interesting article for sure. It raises more questions than it answers. I trust that the special prosecutor has all this info and will act accordingly in making his decision. I still feel this whole circus will damage our intelligence capabilities in the future as it is put out there for all (potential recruits) to see, not just those already involved in intelligence gathering.

"Your assuming that she was covert. All signs show that she was not. Seems she lost that status some time ago."

I'm assuming that if there's a grand jury investigating the disclosure of an agent's name, then at one time she was an operative. If she was a covert operative, her status at the time her identity was revealed is immaterial. Our enemies could use this information to damage our human intelligence network by figuring out who had past dealings with her, even if it was years ago. As I mentioned earlier, it's not going to help our efforts to recruit foreign agents if those people think they might later be exposed, even indirectly, as may be the case here. Now, if she's been bragging about past exploits to her buddies then her clearance should be revoked and she should be kicked to the curb. However, Washington gossip is not nearly as reliable or as much of an attention getter as a high level source leaking information to the press. It's shameful really.

"Yeah Ditter, but think about it. IF they think they won something...they will spend their time on that...and not an agenda."

They have no agenda... but what I find most disturbing here is that nobody seems to care about finding and punishing the SOB who exposed a CIA agent. Our human intelligence capabilities are already in the basement and this type of thing (exposing an agent) would make a potential recruit think twice about working for us... and that can only hurt US. This is a clear case of politicians turning a national security issue into a political circus. That'll hurt us in the end too.

"Well, I base that comment on the recently elected President of Iraq..."

Unfortunately, politicians aren't always the best source of military intelligence. If you check out the link you might find some additional sources to base your opinion on. It's important to know our enemy. The bulk of the Iraqi army disappeared into the population shortly after the invasion and I have to wonder what they're doing now.

"Certainly we have killed over 100,000 terrorists, and probably more than 10,000 Saddam loyalists....."

I have to ask what you base these numbers on? I've never been into body counts so I never researched it but your numbers seem awfully high. As far as I know, there is no accurate count of how many non-GIs (terrorists + civilians) have been killed in Iraq. So, where are your numbers coming from?

By your numbers we'd have had to kill over 3500 terrorists per month since the start of the war. I don't think that's even close to accurate.

I liked your post (and the previous longer one) but there is a misconception out there:

"The RADICAL FOREIGN TERRORISTS in Iraq ARE the invaders!"

Defining who makes up the terrorist groups in Iraq is and has always been difficult. But the concensus is they're mostly Iraqis... Former Saddam loyalists making up the largest group amongst them. Here's one link:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_insurgency.htm

"This is what is being taught in American High Schools: That the American colonists were just like Hamas."

Actually the article leaves it up to the reader to form his own opinion... imagine that. From the article:

"Finally, the decision on the Sons of Liberty comes down to a variation on an old saying "one man's terrorist is another man's patriot." The ultimate conclusion must be left to the individual."

Question your kids (public or home schooled) if they know what the Stamp Act was or who the Sons of Liberty were. I'd be impressed by any teen who could elaborate even a little in his answer. After you explain who the Sons of Liberty were and their role in the Revolution (only if you have to of course), ask your kid if he thinks they were terrorists or patriots. Then ask your kid what he thinks the British thought of the Sons of Liberty. You'll probably get two different answers and that's not unreasonable.

"He came here to asses the potential for a Republican presidential primary campaign centered on opposition to abortion and support for God in public life..."

That's a pretty narrow platform... What else has he got? Anything on reducing the budget and trade deficits, keeping jobs here in the US, welfare reform, illegal immigration, or cutting the pork out of federal spending? Guess I'll have to wait and see. 2008 will be here before you know it.