Commentary: Betrayal (a response to the latest Bush press conference)

[Tchocky]

A good read, to be sure.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Introduction



Today in a press conference Bush spoke to the American public, stating "I believe that we're going to win (in Iraq), I believe that…My comments yesterday reflected the fact that we're not succeeding nearly as fast as I had wanted." Bush's comment yesterday was an unequivocal we are "absolutely winning (in Iraq)." So while we aren't winning in Iraq we aren't losing either, and essentially everything is in a sort of stalemate. So, to shake things up, President Bush has decided to increase troop levels in Iraq despite a warning from the Pentagon that the American military is "reaching a breaking point." So if military recruiting is down and we need more troops, and the military is already at a breaking point, what has to give? I think we're all walking along similar lines here: a draft. When asked if a draft was a possibility Bush sidestepped the question and said he needs to discuss "all possible options" with his new Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates. President Bush ended the press conference with an inspiring message that defeating terrorism is "the calling of our generation." My question is: the calling of which generation?



So the irony of a lifetime is potentially upon us: a military draft. To toss out a cliché, is that not the epitome of the pot calling the kettle black? Here we are, offspring of the "flower children" who are no longer such but instead soccer moms and dads, and also congress men and women. This same generation which shook the nation with its anger towards their parents, the World War II generation, with protests and signs such as "Old men send young men to fight their wars" has seemingly come full circle onto my generation and those even younger than me. The idea of politicians inside Washington D.C. becoming too involved in warfare is nothing new and has been seen numerous times before, and interestingly those betrayed by civil leaders will be the same individuals that will betray my generation if a draft is started. It all started on the Korean Peninsula, vaguely along the 38th Parallel.



Screw Jobs



The United States, in the "forgotten war", had committed troops in the 1950's to keep the Korean Peninsula "stable", also known as "keeping Korea away from Communist hands." The United Nations, led by the United States, sent troops to South Korea to protect it from being overrun by North Korea. China, a neighbor to North Korea and also a Communist Regime, was very interested in the conflict and very uncomfortable with American troops being so close. On several occasions China sent troops inside Korea and caught American soldiers off guard. Vastly outnumbered, some estimates have American forces outmanned 5-1, General Douglas MacArthur, a tactical genius, outmaneuvered the Chinese and forced them to retreat back to their own territory. Sending a message to Washington D.C. that he had the Chinese "on the run", he requested permission to follow them into China and squash their force, making sure his troops would never be susceptible to future attacks. MacArthur was met with a resounding "no" out of fear the war would escalate and spread to not only a war with North Korea but with China as well. So American troops during the Korean Conflict were constantly being attacked from Chinese soldiers pouring across their border and American soldiers were told they could not return fire.



The interesting fact about the Korean War: there were two presidents during this conflict, Democrat Harry Truman and Republican Dwight Eisenhower, a former General. I point this out because both political parties were guilty of forcing our troops to fight with one hand tied behind their back.



Vietnam was just as messy as the Korean War and, in my opinion, worse. Over 60,000 Americans were killed because one man had too much of an ego to change his tactics or let his Generals call the shots. President Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, should have known better. After all, he had first hand experience of what war is truly like having fought during World War II. Yet he sent thousands of young men and women to an early grave due to his own arrogant pride. When I was a junior in high school I received an assignment where I had to interview a Vietnam War Vet. My dad was close friends with a man that had won several medals during the conflict and had agreed to talk with me.



I interviewed this man (I'll call him Dean) for an entire Saturday, talking about his experiences and everything he had seen. He had never wanted to be there but enlisted because his younger brother had been drafted and he wanted to look after him, because Dean's younger brother "was a loose cannon and had a knack for trouble." Both men lived through the ordeal and I was humbled at how much Dean had been through and yet he refused to tell me why he earned his medals for bravery, instead merely saying, "It was nothing." Dean finished the interview in tears and I felt horrible for making him relive those terrible moments. His last comment to me as I was leaving was, "You know, I flew in to Los Angeles after the war and hadn't been inside the United States in years. I landed, walked out of the tunnel and you know what happened to me? A woman about my age saw me in my military fatigues and called me a baby killer and spit on me. I never asked to fight. I never asked to be in some swampy country and to be shot at for years. I never asked for any of it. I just simply did what I was told, and I came back to a country that called me a baby killer and spat on me." Dean then said something to me I've heard echoed from nearly every veteran of a foreign war, "I did it…I fought so that my son wouldn't have to." I walked away from the interview feeling sorry for Dean and his experiences. That is until now.



The First Move



During the first Gulf War, over one million men and women were put on active duty and 575,000 Americans actually touched ground. The goal of the Gulf War was to repel Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. When the American military forced Iraq to retreat from Kuwait, the world wondered what the next step would be. Would George Bush Sr. march onward into Baghdad and strip Hussein of his power? The decision was no and Bush Sr. has taken some flack for that move as of late, but I am actually going to take his side. Yes, I am siding with a Republican, and here is why.



Bush Sr. had his reasons for not invading and he made them quite clear through his Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney. Yes, the same man as our current Vice President. Dick Cheney said the United States would not invade because the administration did not want to get "bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq." Yes, I know it's stunning. Cheney was actually against invading. Bush Sr. followed up Cheney's remarks by saying the invasion of Iraq would "incur incalculable human and political costs…We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq." Stunning? You bet. It gets better though. Bush Sr. continued by saying this about U.S. Soldiers:



"Whose lives would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power-America in an Arab land-with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous."



A direct quote from George Bush Sr. His statement was made with such candor and logic it almost brings a tear to my eye. Bush knew it would be a mess so he stayed away from it! Hell, even Cheney was against it but I guess attitudes can change.



Second Time is the Charm?



The debate in late 2002 and early 2003 of invading Iraq once again, this time by Bush Sr.'s son, George W., raged on. I will state I was against the invasion because I do not believe in "preemptive" strikes. I was proud the United States had never been the first to attack and felt as if my country only fought when it was left no other choice. George W. Bush told America we were heading into a new century and one of the dangers we face as Americans were strikes that could happen so quickly there would be no notice. I disagreed with this assessment but the majority of Americans agreed with it and so the decision to invade Iraq was made. The main question than became: if we're going to invade and occupy, how many troops should we send?



Then Secretary of State Colin Powell, the only man I believed to have any integrity on the administration, expressed some slight skepticism through the media at the numbers George W. was considering. This was printed in the San Diego Union Tribune in regards to Colin Powell's recommendation about troop levels, "He (Powell) said he advised Bush before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 to send more troops to Iraq, but that the administration did not follow his recommendation." In a more updated interview in May of 2006, Colin Powell had this to say during an appearance on British television:



"I made the case to General Franks and Secretary Rumsfeld before the president that I was not sure we had enough troops. The case was made, it was listened to, it was considered. A judgment was made by those responsible that the troop strength was adequate." (Note: Boldface was added by me.)





Colin Powell, a man that played a key part in America's first Gulf War and arguably knew the area better than anyone in Bush's cabinet, made a suggestion "before the president" and "a judgment was made by those responsible" to not follow that suggestion. President Bush heard Powell's recommendation and as commander-in-chief he is the sole "responsible" party in regards to troop strength. Therefore Bush rejected Powell's recommendation. What's all the fuss about? Well why don't we look at the actual numbers we invaded with.



The United States, led by George W. Bush's decision, invaded and attempted to occupy Iraq with 250,000 troops. That's half the force that actually touched ground during the first Gulf War and one quarter of the force activated by Bush Sr. to simply repel Hussein! And yet Bush Jr. decided to invade and occupy with a significantly less amount. Now, as I said before, I was against the decision to go to war but fighting it was fruitless. Once the decision was made my interest was in making sure everything was done right. It followed the idea of "I don't agree with what you're doing but if you're going to do it, give the generals everything they need to succeed." George W. did not do that and as of October of 2006 we currently had only 145,000 troops occupying and trying to stabilize Iraq. So Bush Jr. had significantly less troops to not only invade but occupy Iraq a second time around? Sure, that sounds like a good plan.



Conclusion



So what is the point of all this? President Bush is just now realizing the plan has failed, his legacy is potentially tarnished and something needs to be done to repair it. While he won't admit he made a mistake, he is now realizing many more troops are needed to stabilize Iraq, and one cannot forget our invasion of Afghanistan. A military draft may be his only viable option which means my generation and those younger, mainly children born during the years 1988 and 1989, will carry the burden for yet another politician's arrogance, pride and miscalculation.



And there we have it: the protesting children of the Vietnam era have become the "old men" they so desperately despised and we have become the "young men" sent to fight their war. My dad recently informed me that Dean, a Republican his entire life, had initially voted for Bush in 2000 but had become troubled by several of his policies and the Iraq war and began doubting Bush as a leader. Dean told my dad he planed on voting for the Democratic ticket for the first time in his life in 2004 and yet, last minute, he simply "couldn't do it" and voted for George W. Bush again. And there it was: Dean had stabbed me and every man and woman born in the 1980's in the back. Dean had seen the ravages of war and what it does to one's spirit and psyche. Dean had told me of the pain of feeling betrayed by his country, that he had not wanted to fight but was told by older men seemingly out of touch with America that it was his duty to fight. And yet, when crunch time came in 2004, Dean opted with Bush and became a gray haired old man he so desperately hated. He gave Bush a mandate for his actions and Dean effectively gave a stamp of approval on the graves of 4,000 men and women from my generation that will never get to have a family of their own, or if they had one, witness them grow. Dean is a traitor.



What is the main difference between the Vietnam generation, the Korean generation and my generation? Those men and women were told to fight in a conflict started by a foreign power. South Vietnam was invaded by North Vietnam and likewise South Korea was invaded by North Korea. My generation was not the victim of a foreign power but instead a domestic one! Our own fathers, the Vietnam generation, started the fight in a preemptive action! And, to this day, no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) have been found in Iraq. Whether or not you believe Bush lied about these WMDs to invade is no longer relevant. The bottom line is: the premise for this invasion was to capture these WMDs and there were none! And the downfall of a preemptive strike is it has to be correct or you lose all credibility. To this day, the United States invaded Iraq under incorrect pretenses, thus making us the aggressors!



The mistakes of the Vietnam generation are gaining momentum and it's my generation's blood spilling in the process. And do not think for one moment the World War II generation did not play an integral role in this fray as well. Senior citizens are the most active in terms of voting and also gave Bush his mandate in 2004. This I say to you, to all the grandfathers and fathers inside the United States: go to hell. You created this war and made the first move. It is a grave enough sin you have already taken 4,000 men and women from us, but I'll be damned if you'll make that number grow due to your own pride and arrogance. This is your war, grandfathers and fathers. If you want increased troop levels, dust off your helmets from the Normandy invasion and brush off your M-16's from the Tet Offensive. Iraq is a couple thousand miles to the east.



And if a man from the draft board ever shows up at my door with a notice I've been drafted, I'll know exactly where to stick it.

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i1...nger_flame.jpg

[Starla]

Hell will be unleashed if here is a draft. People may be somewhat passive now but I can see that changing quickly if this is part of the plan.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by To Starla

Hell will be unleashed if here is a draft. People may be somewhat passive now but I can see that changing quickly if this is part of the plan.

I figure the American public must want it, seeing as how they elected to power in Congress the party that proposed the draft recently and threw out the guys who voted it down

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by To Starla

Hell will be unleashed if here is a draft. People may be somewhat passive now but I can see that changing quickly if this is part of the plan.

That's why it keeps getting brought up constantly like its some bogeyman. It has nothing to do with whether or not its actually likely that a draft will actually occur. It has everything to do with anti-war people desperately wanting some concrete event that will, for lack of a better word, punish the people who dared to disagree with them initially.

What's strange to me is that the people who seem to rail on the most about how scared they are of the draft are the same people who also say they're just going to dodge it anyway. Why should the guy who's going to tell the draft board guy "where he can stick it" have anything to fear from the enaction of the draft?

[Karl Connor]

regardless ... a draft is a strong possibility which is troubling

i mean what else can they do. they're supposed to send more troops but the numbers arent there

[rocksteady]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

I figure the American public must want it, seeing as how they elected to power in Congress the party that proposed the draft recently and threw out the guys who voted it down

because charles rangel speaks for the entire democratic party.

say isn't that the kind of mentality that perpetuates the two-partyu system you so vehemently abhor?

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by Corganist

That's why it keeps getting brought up constantly like its some bogeyman. It has nothing to do with whether or not its actually likely that a draft will actually occur. It has everything to do with anti-war people desperately wanting some concrete event that will, for lack of a better word, punish the people who dared to disagree with them initially.

What's strange to me is that the people who seem to rail on the most about how scared they are of the draft are the same people who also say they're just going to dodge it anyway. Why should the guy who's going to tell the draft board guy "where he can stick it" have anything to fear from the enaction of the draft?

Seems to me he's more worried about the draft on a general level than on a strictly personal level. And he does make a point that more soldiers are going to have to come from somewhere - if that increase is mandated, it's possible the recruitments may be mandated too.

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

I figure the American public must want it, seeing as how they elected to power in Congress the party that proposed the draft recently and threw out the guys who voted it down

It was defeated 402-2. Thank god for that republican majority!!!

[Travis Meeks]

Merry Christmas Lee

[DeviousJ]

Thanks man, and yourself!

Wait do I need to call you Sir now?

[Travis Meeks]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

Thanks man, and yourself!

Wait do I need to call you Sir now?

I am a man of the people. You may call me Sir.