Rusted Sky

WWII was a different beast, and I see a continuous attempt on the right to equate these wars. No, I don't support every action we took in fighting that war, but I'm far more likely to give Allied commanders a pass on some of that--not because we won, but because of the enemy we were facing.
-
Korea, Vietnam... These were very different wars. Gulf War I... very different from those. Each had it's own moral issues, and a lot of that had to do with the nature of the enemy we were facing.
-
The public perception of this war has moved beyond the Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity talking points. If you've been listening to the president's speeches last week and this week, he's saying what the war critics have been saying all along: There were mistakes. And yet, I don't see the fact that the President himself (finally!) admitting this is filtering at all into the conservative mind.
-
I am willing to leave aside the issue of how we got there. It's done, and history will judge. My question (and I really don't have an answer) is what we can do going forward. And because I perceive a very different situation than you seem to, I have zero confidence in this administration. When Rumsfeld has to be publicly corrected by Pace in front of reporters about US policy, he's not the right guy for the job.
-
As always in this conversation, I hope you are right. Like I said, history will judge. I would be ecstatic if all of this nation building works out, even if it means that Bush goes down in history as one of our great presidents. Boy would I like to be wrong, but nothing since this has started has given me pause.
-
Lastly, I read the conservative blogs and I listen to Rush Limbaugh if I'm stuck in traffic. I am excited for the sane Iraqis who see this as an opportunity to build something good for their families. I am proud of the troops who are fighting for something they actually believe in. I know there is good news, but on balance, as you know, I don't think the overall picture is good at all.
-
Two years of graft and missing reconstruction funds, of mismanagement by inexperienced kids from the Heritage Foundation, electricty is below pre-war levels after TWO YEARS. Reporters can't leave the green zone to report the "good news" without getting shot. I just don't see how it can be done.
-
And, from my final bullet points in my original comment, there's this torture thing. The administration is shooting itself in the foot on this one. If they think the CIA should be able to torture people, fine. That's what Cheney is arguing for. To have Bush and Condi saying "We do not torture" is just a flat out lie, obviously, given what they are trying to do on Capitol Hill. If they want to do this, they need to get Americans on board, not lie about it.

Oh, I meant to say, about "evil." I think there is evil in the world, and I am not sure that there isn't evil men in positions of power. But I don't think you need to ascribe evil to everyone in the white house to describe how I think they have messed up. Shortsightedness, incompetence, and a bit of corruption pretty much covers it. I can totally understand why you are frustrated with the Democrats from 1970 to the Contract with America, but it seems like Republicans have made up for lost time with this whole "pay to play" K-street Norquistian bullshit. The longstanding perception you have developed about Dems, people of younger generations are currently developing about Republicans.
-
And, geeze, for real this time, this is the last thing I have to say today. In your next post you say that we really are coming to end of a dark tunnel in Iraq. Hope you are right, but I suspect we'll still be dealing with a very bad situation this time next year. I bet you a beer that's the case, and I sure hope that I'm the one to pay up.

I'll bet you an oil-can of Fosters, Jason. (Grin)

I gave up listening to Rush a number of years ago. He was a one-trick pony, and I got tired of watching him.

Re torture....

My main problem with the 'torture' allegations is because the word's been effectively stripped of meaning. The training I got in the E&E section of USAF survival school would qualify as severe torture these days, though it was mostly lack of sleep for a couple of days, and a bit of tight confinement, and some starvation. (Actually, more not enough to eat for a couple of days than real starvation) Torture used to be extreme physical duress - starvation, ripping out of fingernails, crushing of limbs, electric shocks, amputations and so on. Read the various accounts of what went on in the Hanoi Hilton, what the Viet Nam POW survivors had to endure. Look at the tortures used by the Inquisistion. Now look at the 'torture' that folks speak out against today. Are you arguing that the two are equivalent physically?

I tried to include the moral creep of the European bombing campaign to show how things degenerated there during the 3-4 years of raids. Nobody was complaining about bombing the German cities after the Blitz and the Battle of Britain. The line for what was morally acceptable had shifted pretty darn far.

As far as the use of 'torture' goes, you might not agree with them - but the problem with that is that neither you or I are in a position to either adequately judge the effectiveness of the current duress that's being used to get information from prisoners, or to even know what's being done. I'm pretty sure that we're not using a rack and an Iron Maiden, and thumbscrews are a thing of the past, and the bastinado's been given the boot. We're not dislocating arms and legs, breaking collarbones and the like. Real torture used to be more than just being uncomfortable. (I recommend "King Rat" by Clavell by the way, for an uncomfortable look inside a Japanese POW camp.)

We haven't resorted to incarcerating Muslims in the US in wholesale lots, much less torturing them. Sure would be nice to have a neat, fine line drawn between the settings on the Torture-O-Stat so we could know what was 'acceptable' and what wasn't. And the trick of trying to make everything labeled as torture unacceptable is just a fool's game. Is playing Brittainy Spears 24/7 torture? How about Blue Man Group? Kraftwerk? Elvis? Old 78's of Caruso? 50 Cent?

Discomfort doesn't equal torture. Re extraditing terrorists to Europe for real torture - I'm going to figure that there's a damn good suspicion that the information they've got is needed, and that's the only way they can get it out in a timely fashion. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Re WW2 and Iraq -

Comparing Iraq and WW2 probably isn't a good way to go about it, because the media's pretty well given up on proper use of military nomenclature. They keep confusing a battle or campaign with a war. There was the Battle for Fallujah, in the Iraq campaign, on the War on Terror. In as much as Iraq is sucessful, it's NOT the war, though it's essential to the winning of the war - just like taking back France and establishing logistics routes through it was essential to the assault on Germany. We win in Iraq, and the WoT takes a significant leap forward.

Re logistics and supplies - take a look at this bit for more info on Iraq's electrical system, and this bit on water and sanitation.

And this is the USAID Weekly Update on improvements in Iraq. Funny how there's so much that goes unreported. (And this doesn't cover US military improvements to the infrastructure, either.) Here's the Top Ten USAID Strategic Accomplishments in Iraq.

Re Evil:

A Scathing Chairman Dean Finds Republicans 'Evil,' 'Corrupt' and 'Brain-Dead'

Dean has suggested that they are "evil." That they are "corrupt." He called them "brain-dead" during a stop in Toronto -- and while the Terri Schiavo case was still in the news. He has tagged Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) as a "liar." Last week, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that he mimicked a "drug-snorting Rush Limbaugh" at an event there.

Happy Howie strikes. I'm sure he was the life of the party with THAT impersonation.

Characterizing the other side as Evil really does tend to limit conversation, and makes it hard to come to agreement. Sure, he's playing to his base - but how does it look to those who aren't part of that base?

Re BushCo. mistakes... Did you even READ what I've said about military mistakes? During WW2, there was a training exercise for D-Day that ended up with over 700 men dying. (Google up "Slapton Sands") What purpose would have been served by advertising that mistake while the war was going on?

And I'm sorry, perhaps I've spent too much time in the military in occupations where OPSEC (Operations Security) was essential - but you don't tell the enemy where you've messed up any more than you tell him what your plans are. And the way the media insists...

Oh, wait a sec. *light bulb flares up.*

You don't tell the enemy where you've messed up any more than you tell him what your plans are - unless you're sure that the release of that information won't be of any value to the enemy, and can do you good.

Dang. I didn't think about that. That puts things in a totally different light.

Hmm. Want to make it a case? (Not that I NEED a case of Fosters.. I drink maybe one beer a month.. But it'll keep. (grin))

J.

Yer on for the case of fosters. You're right, it'll keep :)

On torture: Submitting to harsh treatment for training of fun is one thing, having it done to you against your will is something else.

Setting aside the fact that at least two people in U.S. custody have been TORTURED TO DEATH (a lot more than "discomfort"), I'm pretty much of the opinion that anything banned by the Army Field Manual and the Geneva Conventions should apply to all U.S. personell interrogating any prisoner.

If there is a situation where an individual soldier or CIA agent feels strongly enough that torture is necessary that they are willing to break the law (ticking time bomb scenario), they can do that! Willing to face the consequences if they are wrong makes for the right kind of decision making for serious stuff.

Jason -

Why do you think we were given that training?

J.