Support the troops redux

I'm in quito for work and I'm stuck in the hotel
room because I've picked up some kind of stomach
virus that won't go away. All I've done for the past
24 hours is migrate from the computer to the bed
to the bathroom, so I got to watch about 15 hours
of TV yesterday. One of the expat channels is showing forrest
gump this week, so I settled down to watch forrest and bubba
discuss boiled shrimp fried shrimp, shrimp sandwich, etc.

One scene that particularly jarred me was the peace protest
rally, where they are protesting Fucking VIETNAM!

The big banner behind the podium says "Support our GI's,
bring them home". Which makes me wonder if the hippies even
spent money to reprint signs for this war, or they are using the
same ones.







Iraq and Vietnam are similar in that the roots of both wars are
deep. There were several points in time before ground troops were
in vietnam where we could have changed policies, not returned indo
china to france after WWII, not supported the french, not supported
the South Vietnamese and just washed our hands of the whole thing.

Once ground troops were there and it was a proxy war with the Soviet
Union it had morphed from a colonial war that was a bad idea to an
anti-domino war where the country did have something at stake. The
troops should have been supported by silence, not protests.

The Iraq war is similar in that it is a continuation of the first gulf war where
only a cease-fire was signed way back in 1991 on condition that Saddam
give a full accounting of it's wmd and destroy all of it, not fire missiles at
coalition aircraft, etc (resolutions 686 and 687) The cease fire was signed
after the first bush decided not to go on and attack bagdad and topple
saddam.

The roots go even further back because we gave support to Iraq against
Iran, when we probably should have been bombing both combatants, or at
least not talking to either one. This led to our ambassador telling the Iraqis
'we have no opinion with arab-arab conflicts like your border disagreement
with the Kuwaitis'. (that's the text of the conversation between Saddam and
Ambassador Gilespie- fascinating)

So my point is, if I have a point, both wars had deep roots that go back in time.
The final decisions were made to send in ground troops, and after that point
we are stuck like a fly in amber. As mortals we can't go back in time and change
any of the events that happened in the past. We are there, the troops are fighting.
We can either support them by sending money or packages, we can work hard
so that the economy stays strong, we can strap on bombs and fly to Iran and blow
ourselves up over there (maybe not), but protesting the war and demanding
the troops come home is not support and never has been, in this war or in
past wars.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The other side of Porkbusters, the people who need pork

Here in Alaska the governor is discussing a PR campaign would attempt to tell the rest of the US that Alaska is not just a consumer of Federal money, and it would "tell Alaska's story": (from a column by Beth Bragg) The governor wants to "tell Alaska's story" to the Lower 48 so folks down there have a better idea of what it's like up here. The goal is to end the ridicule we've been so good at inspiring lately, what with our bridges to you-know-where and our desire to drill for oil in a wildlife refuge. The thinking goes like this: If we can educate the critics with pictures of a desolate ANWR and defuse the comedians with pictures of a serene and congenial Ted Stevens, then we can move on to our ultimate goal, which is building bridges to you-know-where and drilling for oil in a wildlife refuge. Or as the Governor actually said: "Alaska does not just take. We give, and we have the capacity to give much, much more -- if permitted to do so,&
Read more

Haditha slant in the press

Image
There's not much actual information out in the press about what really happened in Haditha, but most of what has come out is highly slanted against the marines. The only data point I've seen is an interview with the lance corporal who survived the initial IED explosion. Here's a summary of the interview here: (RHCP) (video here ) Again, here's a summary of the salient facts that Crossan related: 1) The Marines knew there was going to be an attack on the command outpost, which would explain the high degree of suspicion about the Iraqi's in a taxi that first refused to stop, then ran away from them. 2) There was an IED attack on his humvee, and a squad was sent in 3) Insurgents began firing on the Marines almost immediately. 4) He's not claiming to have witnessed anything. The first slant that has already been pointed out in several places (hotair), is in the times online from london, where they grabbed one quote from Corporal Crossan , “were blinded by ha
Read more

Offshore blogging again

Image
I had to zip offshore yesterday at the last minute, changing my tranquil sunday at home to a mad dash to the dock, then a four hour crew boat ride to the rig. Not too bad of a ride, I only reached the nasty salivating feeling before we arrived at the rig, it sucks when the high point of the evening is not puking. I stayed out on the back deck most of the time since I won't get sick if I can see the horizon and not smell that boat smell of lysol/oldpuke/diesel fuel that inhabits the inside of the boat. It was a pretty clear night, and the only lights were the lights of rigs and production platform as we cruised past, so I had a clear view of the big dipper and the north star and I willed those two pointer stars to move faster around and speed up time. Apparently there is a meteor shower for this part of the month, because I saw one fall, but it didn't look real, more like a reflection off of metal into my eyes. The next meteorite was more emphatic, maybe even a fireball, b
Read more