70 thoughts on “Make sure to read Dr. Kushiner’s comments on Touchstone”
I recommend to everyone the book Just War Against Terror: The Burden of American Power in a Violent World by Jean Bethke Elshtain. Her thesis is that the United States needs to use more force earlier throughout the world, not less in order to establish justice and the rule of law. While I in no way agree with everything she writes, it is a solid piece of writing.
Dean, considering all of the false witness you have born against Pres. Bush, your criticism of Missourian is breath taking.
Note 49
Dean, surely you jest. I am not the only one who has reached this conclusion.
Here is how I know that John Kerry ran down the American military. John Kerry was a leader of the Viet Nam Veterans Against the War in 1971. I was a student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison between 1969 and 1976. The campus was a center of a great deal of anti-war activity. All of my male student friends had a draft number. As long as they kept up their student status, they had a deferment. The war and the draft were of very intense interest to the students on campus.
Viet Nam Veterans against the War (VVAW) were very active on campus. They frequently (once every 60 days) organized an event on campus. The event could be a speech by a member on the campus mall, sometimes it was a conference to discuss anti-war politics.
I wish I could say the following in John Kerry’s original Boston Brahim accent.
“I personally read essays written by VVAW, I heard speeches given by VVAW, and received leaflets and pamphlets prepared by VVAW and handed out to students. These leaflets and pamphlets directly and emphatically claimed that a very large percentage, if not all, American soldiers were committing blatant war crimes at the direction of, and with the knowledge of their officers.”
If you don’t believe me, go look at the complete transcript of John Kerry’s testimony before the foreign relations committe in 1971. Kerry stated that American soldiers were committing war crimes. Kerry talked about “cutting off ears” and
“hooking genitals up to electric batteries.” Kerry expressly stated that this was done with the knowledge and consent of the officer corp. I think a persuasive case could be made that Kerry and VVAW are the most responsible for the negative image of the Viet Nam vet.
Kerry wrote a book called the “New Soldier.” The cover of the book features a picture which is intended to mock the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima. The American flag is held upside down by three dishelved hippies wearing shabby versions of American military uniforms. Lest anyone miss the point of the image, there are explicit rules for the way in which an American flag may be displayed.
To display an American flag upside down is a direct insult to the flag. To have the flag clutched by persons in shabby and disshelved dress is a second insult. To mock the heroes of Iwo Jima is a third insult. Query: Do you speak Japanese? No? Thank the heroes of Iwo Jima. The contect of this excreable book, authored by one John Kerry is available on the web. John Kerry has blocked the republication of this book, despite considerable interest because he doesn’t want people to see it.
I knew about John Kerry’s leadership of VVAW long before this election came up. I new about the “Winter Soldier” conference Kerry helped set up. I have been familiar with the evidence against this traitor for years. Yes, traitor is a harsh word, but, I consider it appropriate. There is considerable evidence that Kerry met with Vietnamese Communists in Paris in 1970 and 1971 and discussed their “7 point peace plan” and brought that “peace plan” back to the United States and promoted it. This was done while he was still an reserve officer of the U.S. Navy.
This violates several sections of American law. Fronting for the enemy while the United States is actively at war goes over the line in my book.
John Kerry worked with fervor and dedication to do everything he could to besmearch the American military. Up to this point, the American military was respected as the Army that defeated Hitler and liberated Europe. Kerry did everything in his power to destroy that. I had a close friend who attended West Point and he told me that the Army was so demoralized after Viet Nam that fewer young men applied for West Point. Those who did graduate from West Point were more likely to end their careers after their minimum committment, rather than continue for life.
John Kerry got exactly what the foreseeable result of his actions were. He besmearched the reputaion of brave and honest men. He besmearched the reputation of his own country. He facilitated the victory of vicous Communist tyrants. He demoralized the United States Armed Forces.
The American press corp has been fatally derelict in its duty to expose this conduct to the American people. Kerry is a disgrace to the U.S. Navy, he is a disgrace to the Senate.
Kerry is one of the liberal senators in the Senate. He has voted down weapon system after weapon system. After the 1991 World Trade Center he voted to reduce funding of the CIA by $6 billion.
It is also important to note that a number of persons who spoke at the Winter Soldier conference were found to be complete phonies. At least one speaker had served in the military but had not even been assigned to Viet Nam. Representatives of the Justice Department tried to interview the speakers from the Winter Soldier conference with an eye to possible prosecution of soldiers who committed war crimes. The speakers refused to cooperate.
John Kerry claimed in 1971 that he personally observed many atrocities. We know that he never reported them, as was his duty as an officer of the United States Navy. If these facts were true then he failed to follow the difficult but proper route of reporting these crimes.
Do you understand why so many people, over 250 people, have joined Swift Vets. Since John Kerry stated that he observed war crimes directly, Kerry slandered them.
As Bob Dole said all 250 can’t be Republican liars. These men include many who are highly decorated. Virtually none of them are in public life and participating in the Swift Vets effort has cost them their privacy and subjected them to hateful responses. John Kerry’s entire chain of command has joined Swift Vets. These are highly reputable people.
Dean, if 250 people who had served with George Bush vigorously opposed his election as President on the grounds of moral turpitude don’t you think they would be given a hearing? Don’t you think they would be featured on 60 minutes? ABC went to Viet Nam to investigate Swift Vets claims and interviewed three Communists. ABC wouldn’t interview decorated officers of the United States Navy right here in the United States.
Note 53
Sometime ago, I might have been able to vote for Lieberman or Gephardt. I think they are more honorable men and I think they would have prosecuted the war. But, I am aware of John Kerry’s activities from long before this election, I can’t vote for him.
It is perfectly all right to criticize American policy, but, Kerry launched a relentless campaign to convince people that American soldier’s were babykillers. He has a tremendous effect on this country. It took the military years to recover.
Note 53
Dean
I had been immersed in Viet Nam and Viet Nam politics during the years 1969 to 1976. As a student on a “radical” campus, I was and remain very familiar with the activities of the leaders of the anti-War movement. I saw them “up front and personal” when they visited our campus. I saw the student riots and I saw who instigated them. I saw the leaders promote violence in those riots. Solly Charlie, I know the anti-war Left from the 60’s very well. They were driven by anti-American animus.
I really do know what the anti-war left was about. Many of the same people are back with the same worldview all over again. I do note that there are reasonable criticisms which can be lodeged against Bush’s policies. I have no difficulty with that, however, there is a difference between reasoned and prudent evaluations of policy for the sake of improving foreign policy and appeasement and the blame America first viewpoint. Kerry will do the only thing Kerry has ever done, he will adopt the viewpoint of the enemies of his country. In particular he advocated a complete American withdrawal before the North Vietnamese were required to release a single American prisoner of war. We, of course, have never had a complete accounting from Viet Nam for prisoners of war or war dead. Many families lingered in anguish for years not knowing whether their loved ones were buried in an unmarked grave in Viet Nam or locked up in a tiger cage. Note that Kerry never repudiated Michael Moore and that prominent members of the Democratic party attended the opening of Fahreinheit 9/11.
Reasonable people could have opposed the Viet Nam war and wished to bring it to a conclusion without seeking to besmearch the reputation of the country and its military. Kerry is definitely partly responsible for the conditions that exist in Viet Nam now. But being a Leftist means you never have to say you are sorry for death camps.
Note 53
Don’t worry it takes a great deal to nick my hide.
Bill writes: “The whole thing, Jim, not selectively.”
I read the 20 page “key findings” document that said that Saddam’s big concern was Iran. The “whole thing” is 966 pages long. Are you saying that you read the “whole thing,” and that the key findings are not supported by the body of the report?
Note 49. Dean, don’t be naive. Go back and read Kerry’s testimony, not some whitewashed commentary about it. Missourian is right. The anti-war peaceniks see Iraq as a way to regain lost influence. OPF fits into this crowd BTW, as I wrote about in my critique of their condemnation of the Iraq war (“A Plea for Peace”).
Again, I sumit that one of the reasons the hard left hates Bush so much is that see that if the US wins in Iraq, the left is doomed as a credible and potent force in American politics and culture. They need Iraq to fail in order to make their reasonings remain credible. The main reason is the war ends up in “quagmire,” a code word implying endless stalement and attrition (used by OPF and Dean), and the corollary that insurgent movements (guerilla warfare) cannot be fought by conventional forces. A win in Iraq proves both claims hollow and the leftist paradigm developed during Viet Nam comes crashing to the ground. Bush, IOW, is a threat to the left’s existence hence the hatred.
No, Jim, I didn’t mean it literally. You seem to take things that way a lot. What I meant was that both you and Dean are emphasizing one key finding, not all of them taken together in context. Yes, Duelfer reports that the WMD (most of them, anyway) were gone before the invasion, and that Saddam’s main concern was Iran. But he also reports on Saddam’s plans to rebuild his arsenal as soon as Saddam could get the sanctions lifted, and that he was actively seeking their lifting through the Oil-for-Appeasement program. It’s disingenuous, indeed intellectually dishonest, to take one or another of Duelfer’s findings out of context and say that it proves the Left’s position on the invasion. At the time of the invasion, everyone thought Saddam had WMD. He certainly had them in the past, and there was no way to tell at the time that he didn’t. Now Kerry and his supporters want to say that they were right all along. What nonsense! They deserve to join the international gang of corrupt thieves and collaborators, AKA the UN, who lined their own pockets by helping a tyrant. And people think Europeans are more morally aware than Americans! As a priest I knew once said, “You could grow redwood trees at the North Pole with that.”
Will Kerry Withdraw:
From the October 31st, 2004 Washington Post by Ann Gerhart:
“He [Kerry] cops a style from John Edwards: “In three days, a woman or a husband is going to walk into that polling booth, and they’re going to think about their spouse that left to go to Iraq months ago, maybe close to a year ago. And they’re going to wonder how long that spouse is going to have to stay in Iraq, and the kids are going to be wondering, Daddy, Mommy, when are you coming home? Are you coming home?!”
Just what is Kerry implying here? Vote for me if you want your soldier to come home. Hmmm… wonder if Kerry is suggesting that he will withdraw troops from Iraq. Isn’t that at least one obvious interpretation. Does anyone doubt what this election is about?
Bill writes: “No, Jim, I didn’t mean it literally. You seem to take things that way a lot.”
That’s true. You can take the boy out of fundamentalism, buy you can’t take fundamentalism out of the boy! Guilty as charged. But — had you actually read the whole thing I would have been very impressed.
Bill: “But he also reports on Saddam’s plans to rebuild his arsenal as soon as Saddam could get the sanctions lifted, and that he was actively seeking their lifting through the Oil-for-Appeasement program. It’s disingenuous, indeed intellectually dishonest, to take one or another of Duelfer’s findings out of context and say that it proves the Left’s position on the invasion.”
Again, I agree, but I think that you and I differ on the significance of that. As I’ve tried to explain many times — thus far without success — the issue of whether to invade Iraq is not the “property” of “the Left.” The issue is the extent to which Saddam constituted an immediate threat *at that time* — a threat that had to be eliminated without delay, vs. other threats that were more pressing. In saying that we ended up fighting the wrong war at the wrong time and place doesn’t mean that Saddam wasn’t a threat; it means that other matters were a higher priority. This is not a leftist or pacifist position.
Take, for example, Colin Powell’s remarks on Iraq in Feb. 2001: ” We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime’s ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction . . .” http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm
Here’s Powell in May 2001: “The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn’t have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction — chemical, biological and nuclear — I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There’s no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago.”
Or Condoleeza Rice in July 2001: “But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let’s remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”
It’s not that Saddam didn’t pose a threat; it’s that he posed a threat but he was largely contained, and was not the top priority at the moment. General Zinni echoed this in October 2002: “I’m not convinced we need to do this now. I am convinced that we need to deal with Saddam down the road, but I think that the time is difficult because of the conditions in the region and all the other events that are going on. I believe that he can be deterred and is containable at this moment. As a matter of fact, I think the containment can be ratcheted up in a way that is acceptable to everybody.
“I do think eventually Saddam has to be dealt with. That could happen in many ways. It could happen that he just withers on the vine, he passes on to the afterlife, something happens within Iraq that changes things, he becomes less powerful, or the inspectors that go in actually accomplish something and eliminate potential weapons of mass destruction but I doubt this that might be there.
“The question becomes not one of whether there are other options at this moment, because I think there are. The question becomes how to sort out your priorities and deal with them in a smart way that you get things done that need to be done first before you move on to things that are second and third. My favorite analogy in this light is to shoot the wolf on the sled, and don’t be popping the one in the wood line. He’s not the one that’s going to eat you right away. I think this wolf can be left for another shot. There are plenty of wolves on the sled.” http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/zinni-iraq-conditions-pr.cfm
The other issue is, if you do invade Iraq, what is the likely outcome? In the same interview General Zinni was quite prophetic about this, and two years later his warnings have largely been realized:
“Generals can’t walk in and predict when you roll the dice, the friction and fog of war. We can give you a general idea of how we feel things might turn out based on analysis. But in war, shit happens, and it happens often, and you can’t predict it. You can be lucky. You can be good. You can be unlucky and at the wrong time be not so good. If this war drags on, if the combat drags on, it’s going to become messy. There will be more opportunity for more bad things to happen inside the country where the combat is taking place and outside in many different areas, in relationships and in politics. Street reaction could disrupt any good that might come out of this.”
“Civilian casualties, collateral damage, destruction of the infrastructure, and the images that could be created regardless of who causes this will not sit well in the region, will cause problems in the long run and will add to the difficulty in the aftermath. This has to be done in a way where, if it is undertaken, it is done in a way that can be executed as quickly as possible. You obviously have an enemy that will not want this to happen as quickly as possible. The enemy doesn’t see a possibility on his side that he can win quickly, so it is in his interest to drag this out and make this the messiest, bloodiest kind of war that can possibly be made. So you’re attempting to do things quickly against an enemy that’s attempting to slow it down and make it messy.”
“Who will prevail? There are a lot of unknowns and variables as to what could happen. You hear these discussed. Will the combat drag us into the cities and become bloody, urban, with combat in the streets where our technology and advantages are diminished? Could it become the kind of war that drags out in chasing people around that are difficult to find?”
“The next point I made was that the street had to remain quiet. A short war helps that, but the mood is not good. Anti Americanism, doubt about this war, concern about the damage that may happen, political issues, economic issues, social issues have all caused the street to become extremely volatile. I’m amazed at people that say that there is no street and that it won’t react. I’m not sure which planet they live on, because it isn’t the one that I travel. I’ve been out in the Middle East, and it is explosive; it is the worst I’ve ever seen it in over a dozen years of working in this area in some concentrated way. Almost anything could touch it off.”
“My next point was that order has to be kept. If we think there is a fast solution to changing the governance of Iraq, then we don’t understand history, the nature of the country, the divisions, or the underneath suppressed passions that could rise up. God help us if we think this transition will occur easily. . . . That’s going to be extremely difficult. There were 98 opposition groups the last time I counted; I think now it has increased a little bit. If you believe that they’re all going to rush to the palace, hold hands and sing Kum Ba Yah, I doubt it. . . . If you think it’s going to be easy to impose a government or install one from the outside, I think that you’re further sadly mistaken and that you don’t understand this region.”
Remember Zinni here is talking almost six months before the war. His predictions proved to be much more accurate than those of the administration.
Again, it’s not that Iraq wasn’t a threat, but that it was a threat that didn’t have to be dealt with immediately, and that the consequences of an invasion could ignite other threats and difficulties that would keep us tied down in Iraq for a very long time.
Note 62
Again, criticism but no solutions, just…. not the right time.
Saddam was a problem from the minute we let him off the hook in 1991. Wars don’t settle anything unless the enemy is destroyed. If the enemy is not to be destroyed than the price of war is too high. The Confederacy had to be conclusively destroyed so that no one would ever, ever, ever, try to secede from the United States again. The Nazis had to be conclusively destroyed so that no one would ever try to revive National Socialism again. Saddam needed to be destroyed in 1991, the United States listened to the United Nations and its Arab “allies.” Saddam is probably plotting right now to regain power. He really isn’t out of contention as long as his allies have guns and money.
Dither, dither, dither while people die. The people in this case were innocent Iraqis. Iraq was going through a Holocaust and the world was willing to ignore it. “Never again” means nothing when it comes to the Iraqi people in the mass graves.
Jim, first of all, my remark about literalism was not aimed at your religious experience, and I apologize for causing you any pain on that account. I meant it only on the level of how you appeared to read my post.
Your response is well-stated and makes a fair case, I think, for seeing the war in Iraq as something other than an unqualified success. I don’t believe it has been, nor do I believe Bush is the perfect candidate for president (although some people I read in the conservative media do seem to think so). But I do believe that the job has to be finished and that George Bush is indeed a better candidate than Kerry in that sense, on the basis of personal character, experience, and political record.
Bill writes: “Jim, first of all, my remark about literalism was not aimed at your religious experience, and I apologize for causing you any pain on that account.”
No offense taken. What can I say? I was a fundamentalist for ten years. It’s part of who I am and continues to color the way I see things, even though I no longer am in the fundamentalist/literalist camp.
Bill: “But I do believe that the job has to be finished and that George Bush is indeed a better candidate than Kerry in that sense, on the basis of personal character, experience, and political record.”
To be honest, I think you may even be right here. At least I think it is reasonable to believe that Bush would pursue the war more vigorously than Kerry. But on the other hand, Bush takes the advice of people such as Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, both of whom have a record of ignoring the recommendations of professional military officers and diplomats, and with unfortunate consequences. Wrap a different set of advisors around Bush, and I would have felt more comfortable with him in that regard.
Jim, just for kicks, who would you suggest?
Note 65
You know the millitary always gives the same advice… They can only succeed if they are given 100% of the armed forces to fight the last war’s battles. Military people have tremendous problems being innovative. Rumsfeld is a blessing to this country, he is willing to kick the professional military brass’ behind (no reflection here on the skill and heroics of the individual fighting men and women). Even after 9/11 top military brass wanted to build what was essentially a behemoth artillery delivery system that would have been almost impossible move across European terrain let alone desert terrain or mountainous terrain. Top military brass were asking for larger versions of the equipment that won WWII in Europe. Rumsfeld made these brass angry and kicked some out.
Does any one here have genuine expertise in military history, military strategy or the future of warfare. I really wonder if anyone here has the expertise to judge the merits of a dispute between Wolfowitz and top generals.
I don’t, Missourian. I try to read Keegan and VDH when I can. Do you?
Note 68
No I have no special expertise. I have read of the frustration of political leaders who want military brass to develop innovative strategy. I know that Rumsfeld has ticked of some brass and that he has opposed the development of cumbersome, slow moving land based artillery systems.
There was a lot of discussion about the allegedly missing munitions. After a couple of days we learned that American forces inventoried about 1 million tons of munitions and after three years they had destroyed 400 thousand tons. Putting that into perspective, 380 tons doesn’t seem to be a disaster, unless, those munitions were particularly lethal. It then becomes a circular argument, if Saddam did not possess threatening weapons then why worry about their disperal from Al QaQaa anymore than from munition dumps found all over the country. I saw pictures of huge piles of ammunition in schools.
Bill writes: “Jim, just for kicks, who would you suggest?”
I didn’t have any particular person in mind. Originally I felt good about Colin Powell being part of the administration, but he was pretty much marginalized from the start.
Missourian writes: “You know the millitary always gives the same advice: They can only succeed if they are given 100% of the armed forces to fight the last war’s battles. Military people have tremendous problems being innovative.”
The situation faced by the military in Iraq was nothing unusual. Iraq had a conventional army that had to be defeated. Following that it was reasonable to expect that we would face a protracted insurgency. The professional military officers based their advice on exactly those situations.
The Powell Doctrine called for the use of overwhelming force. The purpose of overwhelming force is to save U.S. lives, plain and simple. If I had a kid in an infantry MOS I’d tell Rumsfeld to go innovate with his own ***damned kid, not mine. The army has a place for large scale innovation at places such as Ft. Polk and in the TRADOC command (Training and Doctrine). That’s where you experiment and innovate with new concepts in warfighting, not in a new invasion under fire. [Book recommendation: “The Battle for Hunger Hill: The 1st Batallion, 327th Infantry Regiment at the Joint Readiness Training Center,” Daniel P. Bolger. Very exciting and interesting read.]
Innovating in the fleld is fine, if you’re talking about the development of tactics in order to replace tactics that don’t work. Check out David Hackworth’s “Steel My Soldiers’ Heart” for an interesting read about transforming an infantry batallion in a combat situation.
Missourian: “Does any one here have genuine expertise in military history, military strategy or the future of warfare. I really wonder if anyone here has the expertise to judge the merits of a dispute between Wolfowitz and top generals.”
I have no personal expertise. But the situation in Iraq is similar to other occupations in which a conventional army occupies a hostile country with urban areas — such as Palestine and Northern Ireland. The figure I have heard most often is that you need a force ratio of 1 to 100 — one soldier for every hundred of population. Applied to Iraq that would result in around 250,000 soldiers, considerably less than we have now.
Missourian: “After a couple of days we learned that American forces inventoried about 1 million tons of munitions and after three years they had destroyed 400 thousand tons. Putting that into perspective, 380 tons doesn’t seem to be a disaster, unless, those munitions were particularly lethal. It then becomes a circular argument, if Saddam did not possess threatening weapons then why worry about their disperal from Al QaQaa anymore than from munition dumps found all over the country.”
The 380 tons in question are in a powdered form that can be made into extremely powerful plastic explosives that are difficult to detect. They were under IAEA seal because in some forumlations they can be used to detonate nuclear weapons. RDX and HMX is usually used as a base that is combined with some other explosive; the final explosive depends on what you mix it with. Most of the stuff destroyed or captured by the U.S. is conventional — artillery shells, mines, bombs, etc. Not the kind of thing you want lying around, but definetly a step down from the 380 tons of missing material.
Missourian: “I know that Rumsfeld has ticked of some brass and that he has opposed the development of cumbersome, slow moving land based artillery systems.”
Sure, the military screws up on some systems. I’m not familiar with the one to which you refer, but there’s always the “Sgt. York” or DIVAD (division air defense) system as an example of a multi-billion dollar boondoggle. On the other hand you have the new Stryker brigade out of Ft. Lewis, currently in Iraq. There is some controversy over that vehicle, but from what I’ve heard they have been pretty successful. So the military doesn’t get it wrong all the time. [Wow, I find myself having to defend the U.S. military to conservative Republicans. That’s a change!]
I recommend to everyone the book Just War Against Terror: The Burden of American Power in a Violent World by Jean Bethke Elshtain. Her thesis is that the United States needs to use more force earlier throughout the world, not less in order to establish justice and the rule of law. While I in no way agree with everything she writes, it is a solid piece of writing.
Dean, considering all of the false witness you have born against Pres. Bush, your criticism of Missourian is breath taking.
Note 49
Dean, surely you jest. I am not the only one who has reached this conclusion.
Here is how I know that John Kerry ran down the American military. John Kerry was a leader of the Viet Nam Veterans Against the War in 1971. I was a student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison between 1969 and 1976. The campus was a center of a great deal of anti-war activity. All of my male student friends had a draft number. As long as they kept up their student status, they had a deferment. The war and the draft were of very intense interest to the students on campus.
Viet Nam Veterans against the War (VVAW) were very active on campus. They frequently (once every 60 days) organized an event on campus. The event could be a speech by a member on the campus mall, sometimes it was a conference to discuss anti-war politics.
I wish I could say the following in John Kerry’s original Boston Brahim accent.
“I personally read essays written by VVAW, I heard speeches given by VVAW, and received leaflets and pamphlets prepared by VVAW and handed out to students. These leaflets and pamphlets directly and emphatically claimed that a very large percentage, if not all, American soldiers were committing blatant war crimes at the direction of, and with the knowledge of their officers.”
If you don’t believe me, go look at the complete transcript of John Kerry’s testimony before the foreign relations committe in 1971. Kerry stated that American soldiers were committing war crimes. Kerry talked about “cutting off ears” and
“hooking genitals up to electric batteries.” Kerry expressly stated that this was done with the knowledge and consent of the officer corp. I think a persuasive case could be made that Kerry and VVAW are the most responsible for the negative image of the Viet Nam vet.
Kerry wrote a book called the “New Soldier.” The cover of the book features a picture which is intended to mock the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima. The American flag is held upside down by three dishelved hippies wearing shabby versions of American military uniforms. Lest anyone miss the point of the image, there are explicit rules for the way in which an American flag may be displayed.
To display an American flag upside down is a direct insult to the flag. To have the flag clutched by persons in shabby and disshelved dress is a second insult. To mock the heroes of Iwo Jima is a third insult. Query: Do you speak Japanese? No? Thank the heroes of Iwo Jima. The contect of this excreable book, authored by one John Kerry is available on the web. John Kerry has blocked the republication of this book, despite considerable interest because he doesn’t want people to see it.
I knew about John Kerry’s leadership of VVAW long before this election came up. I new about the “Winter Soldier” conference Kerry helped set up. I have been familiar with the evidence against this traitor for years. Yes, traitor is a harsh word, but, I consider it appropriate. There is considerable evidence that Kerry met with Vietnamese Communists in Paris in 1970 and 1971 and discussed their “7 point peace plan” and brought that “peace plan” back to the United States and promoted it. This was done while he was still an reserve officer of the U.S. Navy.
This violates several sections of American law. Fronting for the enemy while the United States is actively at war goes over the line in my book.
John Kerry worked with fervor and dedication to do everything he could to besmearch the American military. Up to this point, the American military was respected as the Army that defeated Hitler and liberated Europe. Kerry did everything in his power to destroy that. I had a close friend who attended West Point and he told me that the Army was so demoralized after Viet Nam that fewer young men applied for West Point. Those who did graduate from West Point were more likely to end their careers after their minimum committment, rather than continue for life.
John Kerry got exactly what the foreseeable result of his actions were. He besmearched the reputaion of brave and honest men. He besmearched the reputation of his own country. He facilitated the victory of vicous Communist tyrants. He demoralized the United States Armed Forces.
The American press corp has been fatally derelict in its duty to expose this conduct to the American people. Kerry is a disgrace to the U.S. Navy, he is a disgrace to the Senate.
Kerry is one of the liberal senators in the Senate. He has voted down weapon system after weapon system. After the 1991 World Trade Center he voted to reduce funding of the CIA by $6 billion.
Note 53
You can find the text of John Kerry’s book here
http://nomayo.mu.nu/archives/New%20Soldier%20Epilogue.pdf
It is also important to note that a number of persons who spoke at the Winter Soldier conference were found to be complete phonies. At least one speaker had served in the military but had not even been assigned to Viet Nam. Representatives of the Justice Department tried to interview the speakers from the Winter Soldier conference with an eye to possible prosecution of soldiers who committed war crimes. The speakers refused to cooperate.
John Kerry claimed in 1971 that he personally observed many atrocities. We know that he never reported them, as was his duty as an officer of the United States Navy. If these facts were true then he failed to follow the difficult but proper route of reporting these crimes.
Do you understand why so many people, over 250 people, have joined Swift Vets. Since John Kerry stated that he observed war crimes directly, Kerry slandered them.
As Bob Dole said all 250 can’t be Republican liars. These men include many who are highly decorated. Virtually none of them are in public life and participating in the Swift Vets effort has cost them their privacy and subjected them to hateful responses. John Kerry’s entire chain of command has joined Swift Vets. These are highly reputable people.
Dean, if 250 people who had served with George Bush vigorously opposed his election as President on the grounds of moral turpitude don’t you think they would be given a hearing? Don’t you think they would be featured on 60 minutes? ABC went to Viet Nam to investigate Swift Vets claims and interviewed three Communists. ABC wouldn’t interview decorated officers of the United States Navy right here in the United States.
Note 53
Sometime ago, I might have been able to vote for Lieberman or Gephardt. I think they are more honorable men and I think they would have prosecuted the war. But, I am aware of John Kerry’s activities from long before this election, I can’t vote for him.
It is perfectly all right to criticize American policy, but, Kerry launched a relentless campaign to convince people that American soldier’s were babykillers. He has a tremendous effect on this country. It took the military years to recover.
Note 53
Dean
I had been immersed in Viet Nam and Viet Nam politics during the years 1969 to 1976. As a student on a “radical” campus, I was and remain very familiar with the activities of the leaders of the anti-War movement. I saw them “up front and personal” when they visited our campus. I saw the student riots and I saw who instigated them. I saw the leaders promote violence in those riots. Solly Charlie, I know the anti-war Left from the 60’s very well. They were driven by anti-American animus.
I really do know what the anti-war left was about. Many of the same people are back with the same worldview all over again. I do note that there are reasonable criticisms which can be lodeged against Bush’s policies. I have no difficulty with that, however, there is a difference between reasoned and prudent evaluations of policy for the sake of improving foreign policy and appeasement and the blame America first viewpoint. Kerry will do the only thing Kerry has ever done, he will adopt the viewpoint of the enemies of his country. In particular he advocated a complete American withdrawal before the North Vietnamese were required to release a single American prisoner of war. We, of course, have never had a complete accounting from Viet Nam for prisoners of war or war dead. Many families lingered in anguish for years not knowing whether their loved ones were buried in an unmarked grave in Viet Nam or locked up in a tiger cage. Note that Kerry never repudiated Michael Moore and that prominent members of the Democratic party attended the opening of Fahreinheit 9/11.
Reasonable people could have opposed the Viet Nam war and wished to bring it to a conclusion without seeking to besmearch the reputation of the country and its military. Kerry is definitely partly responsible for the conditions that exist in Viet Nam now. But being a Leftist means you never have to say you are sorry for death camps.
Note 53
Don’t worry it takes a great deal to nick my hide.
Bill writes: “The whole thing, Jim, not selectively.”
I read the 20 page “key findings” document that said that Saddam’s big concern was Iran. The “whole thing” is 966 pages long. Are you saying that you read the “whole thing,” and that the key findings are not supported by the body of the report?
Note 49. Dean, don’t be naive. Go back and read Kerry’s testimony, not some whitewashed commentary about it. Missourian is right. The anti-war peaceniks see Iraq as a way to regain lost influence. OPF fits into this crowd BTW, as I wrote about in my critique of their condemnation of the Iraq war (“A Plea for Peace”).
Again, I sumit that one of the reasons the hard left hates Bush so much is that see that if the US wins in Iraq, the left is doomed as a credible and potent force in American politics and culture. They need Iraq to fail in order to make their reasonings remain credible. The main reason is the war ends up in “quagmire,” a code word implying endless stalement and attrition (used by OPF and Dean), and the corollary that insurgent movements (guerilla warfare) cannot be fought by conventional forces. A win in Iraq proves both claims hollow and the leftist paradigm developed during Viet Nam comes crashing to the ground. Bush, IOW, is a threat to the left’s existence hence the hatred.
No, Jim, I didn’t mean it literally. You seem to take things that way a lot. What I meant was that both you and Dean are emphasizing one key finding, not all of them taken together in context. Yes, Duelfer reports that the WMD (most of them, anyway) were gone before the invasion, and that Saddam’s main concern was Iran. But he also reports on Saddam’s plans to rebuild his arsenal as soon as Saddam could get the sanctions lifted, and that he was actively seeking their lifting through the Oil-for-Appeasement program. It’s disingenuous, indeed intellectually dishonest, to take one or another of Duelfer’s findings out of context and say that it proves the Left’s position on the invasion. At the time of the invasion, everyone thought Saddam had WMD. He certainly had them in the past, and there was no way to tell at the time that he didn’t. Now Kerry and his supporters want to say that they were right all along. What nonsense! They deserve to join the international gang of corrupt thieves and collaborators, AKA the UN, who lined their own pockets by helping a tyrant. And people think Europeans are more morally aware than Americans! As a priest I knew once said, “You could grow redwood trees at the North Pole with that.”
Will Kerry Withdraw:
From the October 31st, 2004 Washington Post by Ann Gerhart:
“He [Kerry] cops a style from John Edwards: “In three days, a woman or a husband is going to walk into that polling booth, and they’re going to think about their spouse that left to go to Iraq months ago, maybe close to a year ago. And they’re going to wonder how long that spouse is going to have to stay in Iraq, and the kids are going to be wondering, Daddy, Mommy, when are you coming home? Are you coming home?!”
Just what is Kerry implying here? Vote for me if you want your soldier to come home. Hmmm… wonder if Kerry is suggesting that he will withdraw troops from Iraq. Isn’t that at least one obvious interpretation. Does anyone doubt what this election is about?
Bill writes: “No, Jim, I didn’t mean it literally. You seem to take things that way a lot.”
That’s true. You can take the boy out of fundamentalism, buy you can’t take fundamentalism out of the boy! Guilty as charged. But — had you actually read the whole thing I would have been very impressed.
Bill: “But he also reports on Saddam’s plans to rebuild his arsenal as soon as Saddam could get the sanctions lifted, and that he was actively seeking their lifting through the Oil-for-Appeasement program. It’s disingenuous, indeed intellectually dishonest, to take one or another of Duelfer’s findings out of context and say that it proves the Left’s position on the invasion.”
Again, I agree, but I think that you and I differ on the significance of that. As I’ve tried to explain many times — thus far without success — the issue of whether to invade Iraq is not the “property” of “the Left.” The issue is the extent to which Saddam constituted an immediate threat *at that time* — a threat that had to be eliminated without delay, vs. other threats that were more pressing. In saying that we ended up fighting the wrong war at the wrong time and place doesn’t mean that Saddam wasn’t a threat; it means that other matters were a higher priority. This is not a leftist or pacifist position.
Take, for example, Colin Powell’s remarks on Iraq in Feb. 2001: ” We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime’s ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction . . .”
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm
Here’s Powell in May 2001: “The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn’t have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction — chemical, biological and nuclear — I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There’s no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago.”
Or Condoleeza Rice in July 2001: “But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let’s remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”
It’s not that Saddam didn’t pose a threat; it’s that he posed a threat but he was largely contained, and was not the top priority at the moment. General Zinni echoed this in October 2002: “I’m not convinced we need to do this now. I am convinced that we need to deal with Saddam down the road, but I think that the time is difficult because of the conditions in the region and all the other events that are going on. I believe that he can be deterred and is containable at this moment. As a matter of fact, I think the containment can be ratcheted up in a way that is acceptable to everybody.
“I do think eventually Saddam has to be dealt with. That could happen in many ways. It could happen that he just withers on the vine, he passes on to the afterlife, something happens within Iraq that changes things, he becomes less powerful, or the inspectors that go in actually accomplish something and eliminate potential weapons of mass destruction but I doubt this that might be there.
“The question becomes not one of whether there are other options at this moment, because I think there are. The question becomes how to sort out your priorities and deal with them in a smart way that you get things done that need to be done first before you move on to things that are second and third. My favorite analogy in this light is to shoot the wolf on the sled, and don’t be popping the one in the wood line. He’s not the one that’s going to eat you right away. I think this wolf can be left for another shot. There are plenty of wolves on the sled.”
http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/zinni-iraq-conditions-pr.cfm
The other issue is, if you do invade Iraq, what is the likely outcome? In the same interview General Zinni was quite prophetic about this, and two years later his warnings have largely been realized:
“Generals can’t walk in and predict when you roll the dice, the friction and fog of war. We can give you a general idea of how we feel things might turn out based on analysis. But in war, shit happens, and it happens often, and you can’t predict it. You can be lucky. You can be good. You can be unlucky and at the wrong time be not so good. If this war drags on, if the combat drags on, it’s going to become messy. There will be more opportunity for more bad things to happen inside the country where the combat is taking place and outside in many different areas, in relationships and in politics. Street reaction could disrupt any good that might come out of this.”
“Civilian casualties, collateral damage, destruction of the infrastructure, and the images that could be created regardless of who causes this will not sit well in the region, will cause problems in the long run and will add to the difficulty in the aftermath. This has to be done in a way where, if it is undertaken, it is done in a way that can be executed as quickly as possible. You obviously have an enemy that will not want this to happen as quickly as possible. The enemy doesn’t see a possibility on his side that he can win quickly, so it is in his interest to drag this out and make this the messiest, bloodiest kind of war that can possibly be made. So you’re attempting to do things quickly against an enemy that’s attempting to slow it down and make it messy.”
“Who will prevail? There are a lot of unknowns and variables as to what could happen. You hear these discussed. Will the combat drag us into the cities and become bloody, urban, with combat in the streets where our technology and advantages are diminished? Could it become the kind of war that drags out in chasing people around that are difficult to find?”
“The next point I made was that the street had to remain quiet. A short war helps that, but the mood is not good. Anti Americanism, doubt about this war, concern about the damage that may happen, political issues, economic issues, social issues have all caused the street to become extremely volatile. I’m amazed at people that say that there is no street and that it won’t react. I’m not sure which planet they live on, because it isn’t the one that I travel. I’ve been out in the Middle East, and it is explosive; it is the worst I’ve ever seen it in over a dozen years of working in this area in some concentrated way. Almost anything could touch it off.”
“My next point was that order has to be kept. If we think there is a fast solution to changing the governance of Iraq, then we don’t understand history, the nature of the country, the divisions, or the underneath suppressed passions that could rise up. God help us if we think this transition will occur easily. . . . That’s going to be extremely difficult. There were 98 opposition groups the last time I counted; I think now it has increased a little bit. If you believe that they’re all going to rush to the palace, hold hands and sing Kum Ba Yah, I doubt it. . . . If you think it’s going to be easy to impose a government or install one from the outside, I think that you’re further sadly mistaken and that you don’t understand this region.”
Remember Zinni here is talking almost six months before the war. His predictions proved to be much more accurate than those of the administration.
Again, it’s not that Iraq wasn’t a threat, but that it was a threat that didn’t have to be dealt with immediately, and that the consequences of an invasion could ignite other threats and difficulties that would keep us tied down in Iraq for a very long time.
Note 62
Again, criticism but no solutions, just…. not the right time.
Saddam was a problem from the minute we let him off the hook in 1991. Wars don’t settle anything unless the enemy is destroyed. If the enemy is not to be destroyed than the price of war is too high. The Confederacy had to be conclusively destroyed so that no one would ever, ever, ever, try to secede from the United States again. The Nazis had to be conclusively destroyed so that no one would ever try to revive National Socialism again. Saddam needed to be destroyed in 1991, the United States listened to the United Nations and its Arab “allies.” Saddam is probably plotting right now to regain power. He really isn’t out of contention as long as his allies have guns and money.
Dither, dither, dither while people die. The people in this case were innocent Iraqis. Iraq was going through a Holocaust and the world was willing to ignore it. “Never again” means nothing when it comes to the Iraqi people in the mass graves.
Jim, first of all, my remark about literalism was not aimed at your religious experience, and I apologize for causing you any pain on that account. I meant it only on the level of how you appeared to read my post.
Your response is well-stated and makes a fair case, I think, for seeing the war in Iraq as something other than an unqualified success. I don’t believe it has been, nor do I believe Bush is the perfect candidate for president (although some people I read in the conservative media do seem to think so). But I do believe that the job has to be finished and that George Bush is indeed a better candidate than Kerry in that sense, on the basis of personal character, experience, and political record.
Bill writes: “Jim, first of all, my remark about literalism was not aimed at your religious experience, and I apologize for causing you any pain on that account.”
No offense taken. What can I say? I was a fundamentalist for ten years. It’s part of who I am and continues to color the way I see things, even though I no longer am in the fundamentalist/literalist camp.
Bill: “But I do believe that the job has to be finished and that George Bush is indeed a better candidate than Kerry in that sense, on the basis of personal character, experience, and political record.”
To be honest, I think you may even be right here. At least I think it is reasonable to believe that Bush would pursue the war more vigorously than Kerry. But on the other hand, Bush takes the advice of people such as Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, both of whom have a record of ignoring the recommendations of professional military officers and diplomats, and with unfortunate consequences. Wrap a different set of advisors around Bush, and I would have felt more comfortable with him in that regard.
Jim, just for kicks, who would you suggest?
Note 65
You know the millitary always gives the same advice… They can only succeed if they are given 100% of the armed forces to fight the last war’s battles. Military people have tremendous problems being innovative. Rumsfeld is a blessing to this country, he is willing to kick the professional military brass’ behind (no reflection here on the skill and heroics of the individual fighting men and women). Even after 9/11 top military brass wanted to build what was essentially a behemoth artillery delivery system that would have been almost impossible move across European terrain let alone desert terrain or mountainous terrain. Top military brass were asking for larger versions of the equipment that won WWII in Europe. Rumsfeld made these brass angry and kicked some out.
Does any one here have genuine expertise in military history, military strategy or the future of warfare. I really wonder if anyone here has the expertise to judge the merits of a dispute between Wolfowitz and top generals.
I don’t, Missourian. I try to read Keegan and VDH when I can. Do you?
Note 68
No I have no special expertise. I have read of the frustration of political leaders who want military brass to develop innovative strategy. I know that Rumsfeld has ticked of some brass and that he has opposed the development of cumbersome, slow moving land based artillery systems.
There was a lot of discussion about the allegedly missing munitions. After a couple of days we learned that American forces inventoried about 1 million tons of munitions and after three years they had destroyed 400 thousand tons. Putting that into perspective, 380 tons doesn’t seem to be a disaster, unless, those munitions were particularly lethal. It then becomes a circular argument, if Saddam did not possess threatening weapons then why worry about their disperal from Al QaQaa anymore than from munition dumps found all over the country. I saw pictures of huge piles of ammunition in schools.
Bill writes: “Jim, just for kicks, who would you suggest?”
I didn’t have any particular person in mind. Originally I felt good about Colin Powell being part of the administration, but he was pretty much marginalized from the start.
Missourian writes: “You know the millitary always gives the same advice: They can only succeed if they are given 100% of the armed forces to fight the last war’s battles. Military people have tremendous problems being innovative.”
The situation faced by the military in Iraq was nothing unusual. Iraq had a conventional army that had to be defeated. Following that it was reasonable to expect that we would face a protracted insurgency. The professional military officers based their advice on exactly those situations.
The Powell Doctrine called for the use of overwhelming force. The purpose of overwhelming force is to save U.S. lives, plain and simple. If I had a kid in an infantry MOS I’d tell Rumsfeld to go innovate with his own ***damned kid, not mine. The army has a place for large scale innovation at places such as Ft. Polk and in the TRADOC command (Training and Doctrine). That’s where you experiment and innovate with new concepts in warfighting, not in a new invasion under fire. [Book recommendation: “The Battle for Hunger Hill: The 1st Batallion, 327th Infantry Regiment at the Joint Readiness Training Center,” Daniel P. Bolger. Very exciting and interesting read.]
Innovating in the fleld is fine, if you’re talking about the development of tactics in order to replace tactics that don’t work. Check out David Hackworth’s “Steel My Soldiers’ Heart” for an interesting read about transforming an infantry batallion in a combat situation.
Missourian: “Does any one here have genuine expertise in military history, military strategy or the future of warfare. I really wonder if anyone here has the expertise to judge the merits of a dispute between Wolfowitz and top generals.”
I have no personal expertise. But the situation in Iraq is similar to other occupations in which a conventional army occupies a hostile country with urban areas — such as Palestine and Northern Ireland. The figure I have heard most often is that you need a force ratio of 1 to 100 — one soldier for every hundred of population. Applied to Iraq that would result in around 250,000 soldiers, considerably less than we have now.
Missourian: “After a couple of days we learned that American forces inventoried about 1 million tons of munitions and after three years they had destroyed 400 thousand tons. Putting that into perspective, 380 tons doesn’t seem to be a disaster, unless, those munitions were particularly lethal. It then becomes a circular argument, if Saddam did not possess threatening weapons then why worry about their disperal from Al QaQaa anymore than from munition dumps found all over the country.”
The 380 tons in question are in a powdered form that can be made into extremely powerful plastic explosives that are difficult to detect. They were under IAEA seal because in some forumlations they can be used to detonate nuclear weapons. RDX and HMX is usually used as a base that is combined with some other explosive; the final explosive depends on what you mix it with. Most of the stuff destroyed or captured by the U.S. is conventional — artillery shells, mines, bombs, etc. Not the kind of thing you want lying around, but definetly a step down from the 380 tons of missing material.
Missourian: “I know that Rumsfeld has ticked of some brass and that he has opposed the development of cumbersome, slow moving land based artillery systems.”
Sure, the military screws up on some systems. I’m not familiar with the one to which you refer, but there’s always the “Sgt. York” or DIVAD (division air defense) system as an example of a multi-billion dollar boondoggle. On the other hand you have the new Stryker brigade out of Ft. Lewis, currently in Iraq. There is some controversy over that vehicle, but from what I’ve heard they have been pretty successful. So the military doesn’t get it wrong all the time. [Wow, I find myself having to defend the U.S. military to conservative Republicans. That’s a change!]