Will "They" Still Support the "Troops?" Or Was It Rhetoric?

by: Colonel "Joe" USAR

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:13:03 AM EST


Over the last two years, how often did we hear;

You can not support the troops unless you support the mission.

and

You can not support the troops unless you support the Commander in Chief.

and

George Bush is the leader of the military.

Now in what I measure in days, there will will be a new mission in Iraq, Hooah.

Now in what I measure in days, there will be a a new mission in SW Asia, Hooah.

Dare I now say, if you do not support President Obama you do not support the troops.

I wait for "Vets for Freedom" to issue their statement in support of the new President and the new missions. By their deeds and actions, anything less than total support will be equal to spitting on the troops as they return from Iraq and SW Asia.

There is one thing that I have learned from Vet Voice and that is this organization speaks out for the Soldiers, their Families and our Veterans, politics is only a tool to achieve the ends.

I have no doubt that when the Obama Adminsitration fails to address the needs of our Soldiers, their Families and our Veterans, Vet Voice will call the responsible parties onto the carpet.
Colonel "Joe" USAR :: Will "They" Still Support the "Troops?" Or Was It Rhetoric?
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Will "They" Still Support the "Troops?" Or Was It Rhetoric? | 25 comments
I Too (4.00 / 1)
Await the response from VFF, I hammered one of their supporters on a political google group board, and one who has slammed me and my 'Nam Brothers over and over, as well as OIF and OEF Veterans, who don't follow his and VFF twisted Ideals, this one says he's a recently retired reserve nurse, but never served in a theater nor volunteered to serve before retiring.

He's one who started the 'eagles up group'!!

And I was Glad to see that Murtha carried the day in his race, Real Glad, wondering what their response to that will be, not holding my breath!!

'Hearts and Minds, "The ultimate victory will depend on the hearts and minds of the people who actually live there." -- President Lyndon Johnson

Is "eagles up" the same as "Gathering of Eagles," (0.00 / 0)
those war boosters from Colorado?
[ Parent ]
The Best (0.00 / 0)
I can make out is this was a spin off.

Seems the so called members have all given themselves titles, probably couldn't get anything from the 'gathering'.

Have one, the retired nurse, who was trying to Slam me, and any Vet who disagree's with them, on the only board I play with the 'freepers', a google group board, he's changed his 'eaglet' status Up a few times, was a regional director now is a board member.

They have a site where they post about their 'battles' with Code Pink, it's hilarious. The don't do much as to Vets or Military Personal as a supposedly veterans organization, but take credit for what others do.

Typical bunch of losers, like our own 'swifties' and company of 'Nam.  

'Hearts and Minds, "The ultimate victory will depend on the hearts and minds of the people who actually live there." -- President Lyndon Johnson

[ Parent ]
Only time (4.00 / 2)
will tell. I am interested to see how many of these partisan Republicans will stick to supporting the mission with a new CINC. However, I am also interested to see how many Democrats are truly anti-war now that Obama has won. Only time will tell, but I will be very interested to see who is a phony partisan shill and who stand by their principles.  
Colonel Joe and the Rest (0.00 / 0)
This was in a Diary over at KOS yesterday, I've started using it, with a few changes, to Shut Down the 101st Kombat Keyboard Brigade, as they've already started going after Barack, you all may want to use similar:

To The 'chickenhawk cowards', 101st Kombat Keyboard Brigade

"Obama will be the commander in chief, in a time of Two Wasr.

How can you not support our troops?

How can you act in a way to demoralize our troops by attacking our president?

Do you hate America, or just the people in it?

Why do you hate America, Sean, Rush and the rest?

WHY??''

As they Flip Flopped from their rhetoric going after Clinton to acceptance of everything bush has done they, as known they would, are Flip Flopping Back with Barack!!!  

'Hearts and Minds, "The ultimate victory will depend on the hearts and minds of the people who actually live there." -- President Lyndon Johnson

As You Know (0.00 / 0)
Should be 'Wars', typo whoops!!

'Hearts and Minds, "The ultimate victory will depend on the hearts and minds of the people who actually live there." -- President Lyndon Johnson
[ Parent ]
Truly beautiful (4.00 / 1)
That's terrific!  Every Repub I come across, I'll ask if they are supporting Obama, and supporting our troops by calling for bringing our troops home now.  If they blink, I'll slam 'em with wait, don't tell me you don't support our troops, our president.  Don't tell me you hate America!  Is this not a great country, or what?
[ Parent ]
My prediction (0.00 / 0)
If you go back and read the statements of various republicans during our conflicts in Bosnia, Somalia, and Haiti, you notice that they were constantly nit-picking the missions and disparaging each and every op.  I expect to see more of that.

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama
Yep. Folks aren't exactly objective ... (0.00 / 0)
and have no trouble with logic-defying hypocrisy when it comes to religion or politics.   It's sad that they cannot set the power fights aside when it comes to the nation's good.  "Country first" is some kind of sad punchline when it comes to this topic.

The right mercilessly ridiculed and complained about Clinton on his use of the military, and Clinton regularly seemed to acquiesce to brass turf wars when he perhaps shouldn't have.  There are reasons why the mission in Mogadishu devolved into a complete clusterfuck that had little to do with Clinton.  

It's also unutterably maddening and sad that political fall-out is typically a consideration when it comes to decision-making.  There were times when Clinton gave into that and it cost hundreds of thousands of lives (waiting to go into the Balkans for a very long time and, by far his worst decision as president, standing idly by while the Rwandan genocide raged.

Hopefully Obama won't do the same.  If he wants to use this or that group of special ops and another branch says "Nooo!!  We insist on [insert group here] being involved!", I hope Obama examines all sides and decides based on the facts vs. fear of offending any particular branch.  

Mary

[ Parent ]
Actually (0.00 / 0)
I think staying of Rwanda was a good call and our going into the Balkans at all was a big mistake. I am inclined to think that staying out of Rwanda may have been his best decision overall.  
[ Parent ]
I have my own ideas regarding Rwanda (0.00 / 0)
But I think Sam Kinison explains it best.

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama
[ Parent ]
I'd (0.00 / 0)
say Kinison is probably on to something. Granted, why should we intervene in Rwanda and the Balkans and not Iraq? None of these three nations posed any sort of threat to us? In fact, I would say we have more interest in Iraq than Kosovo or Rwanda. Just goes to show the Bizarro world that the partisan politicos live in. Alot of the anti-war crowd wasn't really anti-war in my book. They are just mad that our troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan, instead of off on their own little pet projects.  
[ Parent ]
Er, uhm, well ... (0.00 / 0)
Chris, I was talking about genocide ... not famine.  That's an entirely different kettle of fish (yeah, like there'd be no conflict/problem if all these folks "just lived where the food is").  

It's hard to rationalize intervention in Europe in a couple of world wars, and defending or $$$ backing countless governments before and since, when we can simply focus on defending our own borders and way of life.  Again, as I mention below, isolationism.  If you aren't for isolationism, you cannot justify turning your back while almost a million people are hacked to death (unless, as I point out below, one happened to have $20 handy to pay your murderer to shoot you instead).  

If a majority of folks want our military to exist only to defend our borders and way of life, we could do with a much, much smaller military (after all, what the frack are the nukes for?) and, as a consequence, save ourselves cut our annual national budget by a third and focus on paying down the (actual) national debt of $55-60 trillion (the $10-12 trillion+ you hear about is just the part of the 'berg that can be seen above the waterline).  

[ Parent ]
I know and I agree (0.00 / 0)
I just couldn't resist the Kinison reference.  

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama
[ Parent ]
Dang ... don't scare me like that. (0.00 / 0)
I thought there for a minute you'd gone 'round the bend.

Next time, end with a "Kidding." or something?  :)

Mary

[ Parent ]
Yeah, well, if you're going to be part of the UN ... (0.00 / 0)
and its most prominent member, and also expect to wag our finger at this or that country's lack of participation in agreed-upon responsibilities within the organization ... and expect others' support and participation in X or Y completely FUBAR endeavor of ours, we can't expect to get away with turning our back on almost a million people being hacked to death (except when the victim happened to have $20 to pay the murderer to shoot him-her to death instead).  

We have always gone to the aid of others throughout our history ... including folks a long, long way from defenseless.  The people of this country have already rejected the notion of isolationism.  As such, I say we either do the right thing regardless of what's in it for us (as we did in all our world wars) or we shut the fuck up, disband all but a minimal military force (the size and scope of our standing army is one which the founding fathers never, ever had in mind), shut down all our international military bases, stop spending a trillion a year on the military (not including the wars, mind), etc.  Is that what you mean?  :)

[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
that is exactly what I am saying. We adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy. We quit screwing around with the rest of the world unless our National Security is directly threatened, instead of compromising our national security to win brownie points with the UN. We should shut down all of our permanent military bases overseas and stop policing the world.  
[ Parent ]
Now (0.00 / 0)
exactly why is it ok to be dragged into wars which have absolutely nothing to do with our national security by the UN, yet at the same end it is not OK for us to get ourselves into wars which have a little more to do with our national  security?  
[ Parent ]
I don't recall saying ... (0.00 / 0)
I thought it wasn't "ok for us to get ourselves into wars which have a little more to do with our national security."

Setting aside the notion that intervention in Rwanda would have meant war (anymore than our intervention in the Balkans was such, for us), since we went after Japan I can't remember the last time we got into a conflict that had much to do with our actual national security being threatened (vs. our pocketbooks, racial affiliations/fears or other reasons).  If Germany had made it across the Atlantic to Canada or Mexico, yeah, that would definitely have been a threat.

We didn't need to blow up or stay in Afghanistan to go after OBL/UBL.  They allowed him there as a guest, could not turn him over even if they wanted to (cultural mandate of hospitality and being responsible for a guest's well-being is absolute).  And we punished them for their defiance.  Instead of following the enemy, we stopped, stayed there and effectively bred more.   The lesson we aimed to teach them has been utterly lost.  

[ Parent ]
Yeah, (0.00 / 0)
I was making reference to the NWO/interventionists with that one, a group that includes a very large chunk of the governing elite. There are alot of minds in DC who think exactly as I described. Granted, why did it take us 26 days to hit Afghanistan after 9/11? We missed an opportunity to do alot more damage to the actual enemy than we did, and that opportunity is not coming back. I think it is safe to say that our current interventionism has failed to prevent wars, entangled us in more wars, and effectively made our enemies stronger. Call me selfish, but I think America needs to start looking out for Numero Uno right about now.
[ Parent ]
I presume it took us so long ... (0.00 / 0)
to get the plans together to go in (we all know the turf wars within the Pentagon are endless -- who gets to go, who's in charge, how many), and perhaps in part to give the Afghans a chance to give up OBL which, again, since Bush & Co. aren't big readers/thinkers, they didn't know was never gonna happen in the first place.  

I don't think it was waiting 26 days that hurt so much -- it ain't like they were gone-gone.  I think it was deciding not to keep going after them and instead focusing on the Taliban in general.  Thus ensuring the Taliban were going to move closer to AQ and join up.

"I think it is safe to say that our current interventionism has failed to prevent wars, entangled us in more wars, and effectively made our enemies stronger. Call me selfish, but I think America needs to start looking out for Numero Uno right about now."

Interventionism in Afghanistan was a mistake, yes.  But that situation is not to be compared to what we did in the Balkans and could have done in Rwanda.  Sad thing is that so many died because of political capital and the whining right at every Clinton decision, and it would have been pretty simple for us/the UN to put a stop to it.  (I really don't think the Hutus would have been able to do a lot of damage with machetes, a few AKs and grenades -- they weren't creative, sophisticated or well-armed.)  

[ Parent ]
We (0.00 / 0)
had no business in the Balkans at all. We wasted time, money, and put our troops lives at risk to make AQ types stronger. We also made the Serbs like us alot less. Not to mention the genocide turned out to be mostly smoke and mirrors and the entire thing has turned into a striking example of hypocrisy. I would say intervention in Afghanistan is much more justified and sensible than justification in the Balkans. We just managed to screw it up big time. As for Rwanda, I would have been OK with a public denunciation and us providing advice/moral support to a solution. However, I would not have been OK with us shelling out oodles of money and committing US troops. I tend to think the Hutus could have done some damage. They said the same thing about Somalia and look how that turned out. It is generally best to avoid tribal/ethnic conflicts like the plague.  
[ Parent ]
Besides (0.00 / 0)
what exactly would the average American(whom constitute the overwhelming majority of the military) get from an active intervention in Rwanda?  
[ Parent ]
IRR Call Up (0.00 / 0)
Colonel Joe, I would like to talk with you about some recent orders I recieved ordering me to report for duty on January 19th 2009. MY obligation is over in February 2009 and I am working in Afghanistan for DOS as a PSD contractor. Please email me Sir at bradevans82@yahoo.com
I would greatly appreciate it.
E mail sent (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Will "They" Still Support the "Troops?" Or Was It Rhetoric? | 25 comments
VetVoice on Social Media
Follow rockrichard on Twitter

VoteVets.org on Facebook
    		•
    VetVoice Recommends

    "The War I Always Wanted,"
    By Brandon Friedman

    "The welcome mat for memoirs by veterans of operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom might never wear out so long as they write with the savvy of Brandon Friedman . . . Friedman's take is vivid, frank, precise and dramatic." --Military Times

    "Add Brandon Friedman's The War I Always Wanted to the ranks of outstanding non-fiction produced by officers from elite combat units in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Always truthful, often excruciatingly so, The War I Always Wanted rises at numerous points to the level of literature." --Steven Pressfield, author of Gates of Fire

    Buy The War I Always Wanted here.

    "A Time To Lead,"
    By General (Ret.) Wesley K. Clark

    "A Time To Lead confirms the rewarding benefits of military service at a time when such service is experiencing considerable strain. It also includes a comprehensive description of America's current national imperatives, which deserve serious consideration." --General Alexander M. Haig, Jr., former Secretary of State

    "This is a primer on leadership forged in battle and by decades of experience. . .This isn't just a book; it's a manual for leading people and living a good life." --Barry McCaffrey, General, USA (ret.)

    Buy A Time to Lead here.

    "Love My Rifle More Than You,"
    By Kayla Williams

    "Whip smart, sassy, with a mouth as foul as a sailor's, 28-year-old Sergeant Kayla Williams. . .tells what it's like to be a female soldier in Iraq." --Booklist

    ". . .echoes military memoirists from Julius Caesar to Ernie Pyle." --Publishers Weekly

    ". . .a shocking, on-the-ground view of one military woman's experience in Iraq." --Bookmarks Magazine

    Buy Love My Rifle More Than You here.

    "How to Break a Terrorist,"
    By Matthew Alexander

    "...a riveting, fast-paced account that reads like a first-rate thriller." --Publisher's Weekly

    " ...an absorbing behind-the-scenes look at the secret intelligence war within a war." --Military.com

    Buy How to Break a Terrorist here.
    Search

    Advanced Search
    RSS Feed Links

    Subscribe to VetVoice in a feed reader!

    Subscribe to VetVoice by Email!
    Diaries and comments at VetVoice do not necessarily represent the views of VoteVets.org. VetVoice will strive to remove any illegal material as soon as it is flagged. Similarly, VetVoice will use its discretion in determining whether to remove exceedingly offensive material. However, between posting and removal, any offensive or illegal material does not reflect the condoning or endorsing of said material by VoteVets.org or VetVoice.
    Similarly, the views expressed on this website are those of the authors alone. Opinions on this website do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Defense or any of its components.
    Menu

    Make a New Account

    Username:

    Password:


    Forget your username or password?

    Front Page Writers
    PTSD Resources
    TBI Resources
    IRR Information
    Casualty Reports
    VA Information
    Support the Troops
    Veteran Candidates We Support
    Congressional Committees
    Contact Your Elected Leaders
    Sites We Like

    Paid for VoteVets Political Action Committee. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. VoteVets Action Fund is a 501(c)(4) organization which primarily focuses on nonpartisan education and advocacy on behalf veterans and their families. VoteVets Political Action Committee is a federal political committee which primarily helps elect Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran candidates and educates about veterans and military issues aimed at influencing the outcome of the next election.

    Site Design: Articulated Man

    VoteVets Political Action and Vote Vets Action Fund are separate organizations.

    Powered by: SoapBlox