Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

December 30, 2006

MILITARY TIMES POLL.... A couple of days ago, the AP reported on dozens of interviews with soldiers of the Army's 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, which patrols the streets of eastern Baghdad, and learned that most of those seeing the conflict up close are discouraged, dejected, and ready to leave. As informative as the piece was, it was difficult to extrapolate from it and understand how most U.S. troops feel.

Fortunately, a poll for the Military Times newspapers, which questioned 6,000 randomly selected active-duty members, gives us a much better sense. In case the myth that military personnel still widely support the president's policy hadn't been debunked enough, these results should do the trick.

Barely one in three service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, according to the new poll for the four papers (Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Times). In another startling finding, only 41% now feel it was the right idea to go to war in Iraq in the first place.

And the number who feel success there is likely has shrunk from 83% in 2004 to about 50% today. A surprising 13% say there should be no U.S. troops in Iraq at all. [...]

Nearly three-quarters of the respondents think today's military is stretched too thin to be effective.

As for the escalation, only 38% of those surveyed believe more troops should be sent to Iraq, while 39% think there should be the same number or less than there are now. (The rest said they didn't know.)

On a related note, Greg Sargent mentioned that Defense Secretary Robert Gates "recently held a photo-op sit-down with some of the troops in Iraq. By sheer coincidence, all of the assembled troops said they support an increase in troops to Iraq."

Nevertheless, given the results, it's safe to say civilians aren't the only ones Bush is losing.

Steve Benen 11:06 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (52)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

History:

The US had become the new Webster's definition of irony: "Even though most Americans, most American lawmakers, and most American military commanders had long protested the usefulness of their presence in Iraq, ironically they still considered their own government a democracy."

Posted by: bliss on December 30, 2006 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINK

So I guess we've gotten to the point of saying "Why do the troops hate America?"

Posted by: tomeck on December 30, 2006 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

and...."President Bush is seriously considering sending more troops to Iraq. So apparently, his goal is to achieve a negative popularity rating."

Posted by: Jay Leno on December 30, 2006 at 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

Does anyone know if there has been any sort of response to this in the RW blogosphere?

Posted by: David on December 30, 2006 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

Does anyone know if there has been any sort of response to this in the RW blogosphere?

Prediction: denial or willful ignorage. Either way, it won't matter to a certain percentage's worldview.

Best,

D

Posted by: Dano on December 30, 2006 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

it's safe to say civilians aren't the only ones Bush is losing.

And the military has all the flamethrowers.

Posted by: Professor Chaos Switched the Soup on December 30, 2006 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

As to the Gates photo op sitdown being 100%.

Reminds me of going through the pay line once a month in Germany - The 1st Sergeant would always sit behind the paymaster. There would always be some charity of the month listed. The lst Sergeant would simply say to each and every soldier, "The Old Man would like us to be 100% this month" - For some reason, we were always 100%.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 30, 2006 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

Often times our troops are characterized as being honorable and brave, which is what all nations do to convince themselves the children put in harm's way are noble and fulfilling a vital strategic mission. It is all a national lie. The mission is not noble and the men who serve are not honorable. The only brave and honorable men in the military are those who refuse to serve, and there are very few of them.

Posted by: Brojo on December 30, 2006 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

The spin in that article is amazing. The poll isn't nearly as negative as the article makes it sound. Let's take the poll's conclusions in a more balanced way.

-- The poll showed a high degree of support fot the President and his policies.

--The level of support had dropped substantially in the last 12 months.

-- Military people are more optimistic about the war than Americans who haven't served.

-- A majority support the President's Iraq policy

-- A plurality wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq (rather than stay the same or reduce)

-- A majority believe the US was right to go to war in Iraq

We should take heart that a poll of Americans, most of whom have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, are optimitic about the war in Iraq.

Posted by: ex-liberal on December 30, 2006 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

It's an unfair characterization to say that those who serve are not honorable. In fact, it's beyond disgusting. The mission may be lacking in honor but the people who enlist and serve are never to blame for the mission at large.

Not even when the bonuses of 50K which promise to bring them out of poverty are so seductive. Class war is repugnant and this war is representative of just how low our country will stoop to protect the interests of the super rich.

When American corporations stop making billions in Iraq, and we are fully convinced we have done everything we can to secure the oil supply, we will pull out. Not a moment sooner, and not with the permission nor opinion of those who have lived and died through the hell of this fraudulent war.

Posted by: bliss on December 30, 2006 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

We should take heart that a poll of Americans, most of whom have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, are optimitic about the war in Iraq.

Gee ex-lib...I DON'T KNOW.

Posted by: Professor Chaos Switched the Soup on December 30, 2006 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

Brojo,

Been out at Dover spitting a lot?

Do not disparage our troops just because their leadership in the White House is made up of ChickenHawks who are leading the troops into disaster.

There are honorable people who follow legitimate, legal orders - There are honorable people who, due to their own convictions, do not.

Most trools come on this site and NEVER acknowledge the loss of one life. If one of them does, they dismiss it as "a mere handful" - They are dispicable - Do not stoop to their level - Do not spit on the returning KIAs at Dover.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 30, 2006 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

bliss,

Well said.

Posted by: stupid git on December 30, 2006 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

The mission is not noble and the men who serve are not honorable. The only brave and honorable men in the military are those who refuse to serve, and there are very few of them.
Posted by: Brojo

Take that crap somewhere else.

Posted by: cyntax on December 30, 2006 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

Ex-Lib aboard the Titanic:

"Half of the boat remains above sea level."

"All of the band is still playing."

Etc.

Posted by: Pennypacker on December 30, 2006 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

Props to thethridPaul for taking the time to engage and respond to Brojo. I just didn't have the patience.

Posted by: cyntax on December 30, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

Shorter ex-lib:

Il Duce ha sempre ragione! Viva il Duce!".

If it were someone else's war, it'd be over now...

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on December 30, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

Brojo, shush.

Posted by: cleek on December 30, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

I think it is a disservice to our young people to offer them respect in return for their service to aggressive military adventures that have characterized US history for the second half of the Twentieth Century and now the beginning of the Twenty-First. I have not spit on anyone nor blamed the soldiers for the mission. I blame the soldiers for obeying. Whether lawful commands are given or not, each individual has a moral obligation to refuse to serve in Iraq or at least refuse to pick up arms against Iraqis. Many of these young people have been fooled into thinking honor and patriotism are virtues greater than charity and nonviolence, perpetuated even by people who know this war to be wrong. I know most of the soldiers had good reasons for enlisting and now find themselves in a dilimma, fighting in a useless war and trying to survive, which they are now begining to recognize. Appealing to their need for national respect, displaces their patriotism in the service of the wrong people, putting them and Iraqis in danger. I want to keep the soldiers from being killed and from killing. I think one way to do that is to end our military Chauvinism and deny that military service in and of itself is worthy of reverance.

Posted by: Brojo on December 30, 2006 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry.

Posted by: Brojo on December 30, 2006 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

Friday, on cspan's Washington Journal, a caller said her son had just been at sea for 4 years, and they finally got to dock at the US in October. Brain Lamb noted that is a very long time to be at sea, 4 years.
The mother contined-- now her son had said they were being told they were being re-deployed to Korea in January. In a choked voice, she related that her son said the sailors were really upset/they were contacting attorneys. She had just been on the phone for hours with her upset son. He wanted out of the Navy, the other sailors wanted out. They feel so used and betrayed by this government.

Posted by: consider wisely on December 30, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

Either Hostile has a convert, or..........?

Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 30, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

Consider Wisely: Those sailors are not alone. I would never reveal the content of conversations I have with those in uniform, but I have been directing people to An Appeal for Redress for some time now.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 30, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

I blame the soldiers for obeying. Whether lawful commands are given or not, each individual has a moral obligation to refuse to serve in Iraq or at least refuse to pick up arms against Iraqis. Many of these young people have been fooled into thinking honor and patriotism are virtues greater than charity and nonviolence, perpetuated even by people who know this war to be wrong.

Look, if you are espousing pacificism, that's fine and that's an opinion you're welcome to. But you've got a long row to hoe, and rather than say anything disparaging about the military and the sacrifices made by them, why don't you start laying out a convincing case for the people in charge (us civilians) about how we can get by in the present world without a military.

Address all the real world problems that disbanding the military would entail. Until you've laid the groundwork, you're making what is really an intellectually lazy arguement by jumping straight to ad hominem attacks on the soldiers.

3rdP, yeah sounds like Hostile redux.

Posted by: cyntax on December 30, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

Global Citizen,

Off thread, but did you read the Peter Slevin article in WaPo today about the Republican Party blow up in Kansas? The Kline appointment to the JoCo DA's position is becoming quite a heated battle.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 30, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

"I blame the soldiers for obeying. Whether lawful commands are given or not, each individual has a moral obligation to refuse to serve in Iraq or at least refuse to pick up arms against Iraqis."

Another solid case for 2 years mandatory service by all Americans. At least understand what you're criticizing.

Posted by: blather on December 30, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

Paul-3 - I skimmed it. The real heavy lifting on the Ks Republican party melt-down and cannibalization has been done by Diane Silver at the In this Moment blog. She is a former statehouse correspondent for the Wichita Eagle. I haven't even bothered to address the issue, since she is doing such a good job, i've just been linking to her.

She is already on it today, and says the eulogies are being written a bit prematurely.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 30, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

blather: Another solid case for 2 years mandatory service by all Americans. At least understand what you're criticizing.

Amen to that! It's easy to criticize 'the troops' for obeying what those of us with leisure to read and think decide are unlwaful orders. It is entirely possible for an individual to fight bravely and honorably even when the larger cause, and the leadership, are neither.

Posted by: thersites on December 30, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

Brojo:

Unlike the others (with whom I agree), I am going to say that it is easy for someone who has not been in the military to have such an attitude as you displayed.

The funny (and I don't mean ha-ha) thing is, many despicable wars have been fought by honorable men. As someone who writes military history, I have had the opportunity over the past 20 years to interview - and in a couple cases become friends with - several former members of the German Luftwaffe of WW2. Certainly a despicable war in service to one of the most despicable regimes in history. Yet each of them was an honorable man. I look at my own generation who fought in Vietnam. A rotten war. Fought by honorable men - certainly all those I knew, and not just when I was there.

Myself, I joined the military because I'd been raised it was the citizen's duty to answer the country's call. Most people get that, to one degree or another. Most of us at age 18 don't have the ability to see beyond the bullshit and the lies, and so our idealistic love of country gets used by the scumballs. It doesn't make us any less honorable that our beliefs and honor were used cynically.

The thing I always hope is that we learn from those experiences. Myself, I discovered there is a difference between love of country and support of the government, and that sometimes love of the former can require subversion of the latter. That's not an easy lesson to learn and many turn away from that knowledge. It was the lesson the German soldiers I knew had learned.

What the people who told you to shut up meant, is that the soldier can be separated from the war. Yes, those who refuse to serve in dishonorable wars are to be admired and one wishes their example was followed more widely. But they are not morally superior to those who go - only perhaps more courageous. There's a difference.

Tom Cleaver
That's Another Fine Mess

Posted by: TCinLA on December 30, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

TCinLA,

Excellent observations.

Question - Have you ever addressed what, if any, differences in the makeup of units which have been organized from the same town, village or even region? During the Civil War, units on either side were largely constructed by the formation of local militias. However, we changed that policy, so that while perhaps a troops may have gone through basic on a regional basis, once they were sent to second eight, they were more dispersed.

However, it is my understanding that many German, as well as Japanese units were made up of soldiers from the same town.

The point is whether many soldiers ended up fighting for each other, with nationalistic views somewhere out there on the very far horizon? They bonded to survive, speeches from afar, be damned.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 30, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

After WW I the military was mothballed, reduced to a skeleton crew, and plans for national mobilization drawn up in case a real national military effort were to required in future. WW II showed that the planning worked and worked well. After WW II the military has been kept in perpetual readiness and the results have been devastating in cost of lives, money, and result. It is time to mothball the US military again and end our quest to control the world with military strength.

Hostile was predisposed to inflammatory rhetoric and ad hominem attacks. It was part of the identity. I am trying to discuss my views without them, which I have tried to do the past two New Years and have made a new commitment to again this year end. Please tell me where I have made ad hominem attacks on the soldiers in this thread. I am trying to argue that a national proclivity to honor the dishonorable behavior that is our invasion and occupation of Iraq, and other past military adventures, is a disserice and incorrect response. Our young people want to exhibit patriotism and be rewarded for it, which is perhaps a virtuous desire, but they cannot do so serving W. Bush or in Iraq. Is that an ad hominem?

Posted by: Brojo on December 30, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

Incredibly relevant essay by Paul Craig Roberts 1/18/05: "The New American Militarism." at anti-war.com/roberts/?articleid=4445

"American hubris...explains why half the US population yawns over the US slaughter of Iraqi citizens and communist-style torture of Iraqi prisoners...America's security and the well-being of the world are threatened by
America's unwarranted belief in the efficacy of force.

"The new American militarism has abandoned the Founding Fathers, deserted the Constitution, and unrestrained the executive."
"War is (their) first resort. Militarism is inconsistent with globalism and with American ideals. It will end in abject failure."

"The world is a vast place. The US has demonstrated that it cannot impose its will on a tiny part known as Iraq. American realism may yet reassert itself, dispel the fog of delusion, cleanse the body politic of the Jacobin spirit, and lead the world by good example. But this happy outcome will require regieme change in the US."

He says that in a book called "The New American Militarism", Andrew J. Bacevich wrote that we can avoid future disasters by returning to the precepts laid down by our Founding Fathers, men of infinitely more wisdom than those currently holding reins of power.

Posted by: consider wisely on December 30, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

It cannot be repeated enough:

Impose a draft, forbid a college exception, and this war ends the next day.

Posted by: Ten in Tenn on December 30, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

Also,

What is also being overlooked here is how this administration has completely shit on the notion of trust in the CIC, SecDef etc amongst the military.

Going forward, if clowns like this can choose when and where to send our kids to die, who the hell is going to want to serve?

Posted by: Ten in Tenn on December 30, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

Ex-liberal, are we looking at the same poll? Here is the webpage that shows the actual questions asked on the poll, and the percentage of responses given:

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006poll_iraq.php

Which questions are you using to deduce that the majority of active-duty soldiers support the President's Iraq policy, and believe it was right to go to war?

Question 6 shows only 41% think the US should have gone to war. That's not a majority.

Question 13 shows a total of 39% wants to decrease the troops in Iraq, or keep the same number. Only 38% think they should be increased. So that's not a plurality.

Posted by: benny on December 30, 2006 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

Brojo,

Though I appreciate your leaving Hostile's rhetoric behind, you're still offbase. Others have addressed your statements re soldiers more eloquently than I am able to.

I would point out that you cite that the "plans for national mobilization" served us well in WWII. That doesn't hold up under any kind of scrutiny. The bad, at times disasterous performance of U.S. forces early in WWII and Korea cost lives, lots of them, and serve as a warning re lack of preparedness. Keep in mind that warfare was probably simpler at that time. If you don't believe me, I'll refer you to Rick Atkinson's "An Army at Dawn" concerning the first US ground efforts in North Africa in WWII, or Clay Blair's "The Forgotten War" re the Korean War.


the thirdPaul,

You hit on an interesting issue, albeit coming from a different angle than I do. Since the "reforms" of the late 19th, early 20th century, American ground units haven't really operated with any kind of manpower stability. We're kind of pushing towards this in a half-hearted way, notably off of the efforts of Donald Vandergriff, a retired Army officer, but I've often wondered if we might not be best served by a modified version of the British Army's regimental system.


Posted by: hotrod on December 30, 2006 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

If anyone wants to read the entire piece from the Military Times, it can be found here with the subscription wall defeated. (The military Times papers are subscription only.)

As I have said before, I've been hearing these grumblings privately for over a year.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 30, 2006 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

Benny, ex-liberal doesn't know.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 30, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

Benny: Which questions are you using to deduce that the majority of active-duty soldiers support the President's Iraq policy, and believe it was right to go to war?

The story said that a majority support the President. I was incorrect in saying that a majority supported how the President is handling the war. "Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved."

The article was incomplete on the question of having gone to war in the first place. It says, " 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place" But, the article doesn't say what percentage think the US should not have gone to war. One cannot tell whether 41% is more or less than the percent who think we should not have gone to war.

Question 13 shows a total of 39% wants to decrease the troops in Iraq, or keep the same number. Only 38% think they should be increased. So that's not a plurality.

There were 3 choices: increase, stay the same, or reduce. The latter two got a total of 39%. Each of them individually must have beeb less than 38%. So the 38% favoring an increase was larger than either of the other two choices.

Apparently the actual poll hasn't been posted on the web. I find that suspicious. Given the slant of the article, I suspect that the actual poll might show a more balanced picture


Posted by: ex-liberal on December 30, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK


shorter ex-lib: balance = more support for bush

Posted by: mr. irony on December 30, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

hey exlax, none of this hair splitting changes this simple fact, Iraq is fucked and we are going to leave sooner or later with our tail tucked between our legs with diminished influence and prestige in the world.

Posted by: Jaku on December 30, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

Apparently the actual poll hasn't been posted on the web. I find that suspicious. Given the slant of the article, I suspect that the actual poll might show a more balanced picture

Really? You find that suspicious? Did you find it suspicious three years ago when the poll reflected support for your views, whereas now it doesn't?

Save your suspicions, genius, they posted the poll results.

The fact that you're too stupid to locate them says all anyone needs to know about the value of your opinions -

I was incorrect in saying that a majority supported how the President is handling the war.

- well, that and the fact that once again a grasp of basic math eluded you in your attempt to understand which numbers were bigger than the other numbers in this poll.

Posted by: trex on December 30, 2006 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

thersites wrote:

"It is entirely possible for an individual to fight bravely and honorably even when the larger cause, and the leadership, are neither."

Yes, I suppose that's true. The trouble is, this applies to the Wehrmacht in 1939-45, doesn't it? And to the Red Army as it rolled into Hungary in 1956? And so on and on.

It doesn't get us anywhere morally.

I would say to the troops, "Welcome aboard. What took you so long? Bush has been using you as a backdrop for years now. Hang in there, and get home safely, some day."

Posted by: Hal Grossman on December 30, 2006 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

"...Oh, and you might consider voting Democratic for president next time."

Posted by: Hal Grossman on December 30, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal: Given the slant of the article, I suspect that the actual poll might show a more balanced picture.

Given ex-liberal's patent intellectual and factual dishonesty, I suspect everything he quotes, everything he concludes.

Posted by: Google_This on December 30, 2006 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK

ex-lib Doesn't Know.

Hal, about half of them do. The right is fond of pointing out that somewhere in the neighborhood of 60% of officers are registered Republicans. But enlisted personnel far outnumber the Officer Corps and they are pretty representative of the country as a whole. But yeah, this president has done a lot to bolster the number of Dems in the ranks.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 30, 2006 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK

Bush may be losing on all fronts, but are the Republicans losing?

Despite Bush, Democrats barely squeeked by in the November elections to take control of the Senate by a single vote, for instance, and the House in elections where they won by less than 1,000 votes in many instances.

And 44 percent of voters polled recently selected John McCain as their choice for the next president.

The reason: Well, there are a number, I'm sure, but a big one is that too many (including posters on this blog) who oppose what Republicans are doing are putting the blame on Bush exclusively. See, it's not the Republicans; it's Bush, they seem to be saying.

Remember this in your posts. Bush is not running again; Republicans are running and this includes John "I love the Republican Party" McCain, a true blue hardline Republican if ever there was one.

It's the Republicans, stupid.

Got it?

Posted by: douglas on December 30, 2006 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

McCain has grabbed at people's heartstrings because of his time as a POW, and certainly it was awful for him.
However, he is the wrong choice at the wrong time. He uses disingenuous rhetoric, all the while casting himself as a straight talker. That myth has been busted into pieces. To this day he does not give a truthful assessment of the war, the path that led to this war, and wants to escalate the violence. He, too, seems to want to consolidate the empire in his foreign policy views. I think he, too, would be a "war president."
I am afraid his rhetoric does not reflect reality either, and he is just bush redux. We cannot have endless military intervention and he has given every indication this is a-ok with him.

Posted by: consider wisely always on December 30, 2006 at 10:12 PM | PERMALINK

It might serve us all well to remember that in military units serving overseas (e.g., Afghanistan and Iraq) service members do not typically have a chance to watch news other than Fox News and read only standard issue Stars and Stripes newspapers which hardly tell the truth about the real conditions of war and the state of public opinion back home. It is not hard to imagine that in such a climate, most troops would still register higher levels of support for a war the American public has long since abandoned as viable and reasonable. With fewer opportunities to read and view opposing points of view, the fact that so many troops already register a high level of antipathy for the war is in itself not only amazing, but telling.

Posted by: marvc on December 30, 2006 at 10:46 PM | PERMALINK

I agree--marvc. It IS amazing. I am sure some access the internet and they know they have had contradicting facts and they, or those they know, have experienced disappointing stop-loss and re-deployments. Some of the documentaries I have watched on the cable military channel make it seem some are pretty connected via internet.

Posted by: consider wisely always on December 30, 2006 at 10:54 PM | PERMALINK

brojo says:

The only brave and honorable men in the military are those who refuse to serve, and there are very few of them.

If they sign up for the military, they willing accept the fact that they may be sent to perform their duties as soldiers, and if they are soldiers, they don't have the luxury of disobeying their legal orders. Seems like you should be arguing that they never should've signed up for the military in the first place. It's illogical for someone to sign up for the military, train to shoot a gun, drill to follow orders, and then turn around to not do any of that.

I'm actually surprised at those poll numbers. If I were in Iraq, I'd imagine that it would be hard to do my mission if I didn't believe in it. And if that's what it's come down to, then it's truly over.

Posted by: Andy on December 30, 2006 at 11:10 PM | PERMALINK

hotrod,

Thanks for your remarks - Just as I started typing that post, had a call demanding attention elsewhere - so I threw that thought out, not well written, but sort of the jist of my question.


To all of the trools - You all must be excited about the coming of the 3,000 mark - In your Trool Ghoul Pools, who will be the winner? Only two to go. At the rate we are losing troops, you better start your 4,000 club - then 5- then 6 - You all must be sooooo very happy.

Of course, these are only our numbers - Not to mention the losses suffered by the other nations, nor does it take into consideration the vast numbers of Iraqis killed and maimed. Nor of those of other countries and ourselves in that Unfinished Mission Accomplished land of Afghanistan. Yes, indeed why was the 10th Mountain either called back or never called?

But, just a speck on throw away paper at the Petroleum Club.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 31, 2006 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly