A commenter seems to think we oppose military recruitment efforts because we oppose George Bush. He's got it all backwards.

We oppose this immoral, senseless war.

We oppose young people risking their lives, limbs and sanity in order to kill people who are not their enemies and have done them no harm.

We oppose young people having so few options that they're willing to kill and risk death for a shot at education and advancement.

We don't oppose the war because it's Bush's! We oppose the war. We would oppose any president who lied to the country in order to start a war for profit and distraction. We oppose this president because he did (among many other important reasons).


G said...

There is a terrific article in this month's edition of Harpers about the disabled soldiers who are returning home, how they are a cost the US would just as soon pretend did not exist. "A War of Disabilities", by Ronald Glasser, is the piece - unfortunately it is currently only available in print. But this article is nonetheless worth the price of the magazine alone.

L-girl said...

Thanks for alerting us to that.

As it happens, Redsock subscribes to Harper's and that article is in my To Read pile. I would have forgotten to mention it, so I'm glad you did.

Clear View said...

L-girl, do you really think it's wise to just get up and leave Iraq? Whether you agreed with the war or not, we are there and we have to win. Unless you don't mind Zarqawi running Iraq, a country that is in between two states that support terrorism:Syria and Iran. Hate Bush? Doesn't matter at this point. And sensible people mourn every american soldier and innocent iraqi killed. In wars, there are always casualties. In WW2, over 480,000 americans were killed. There were 7,000 marines killed in ONE MONTH in Iwo Jima. Put aside your left wing ideology for a minute and think through the consequences of what you're advocating.

RobfromAlberta said...

Clear View, as the resident conservative here, I have wrestled with the very issue you describe, will a withdrawal of coalition forces result in a worse situation than the status quo? I suspect the answer is yes, in the short term. Iraq is on the verge of a civil war and it will almost certainly descend into anarchy when the foreign troops leave. In the long run, however, a strongman will arise and restore order. Given the numerical advantage, I suspect the next government will be Shi'ite rather than Sunni, and will be pro-Iranian. This is, of course, not a good outcome for the West, so the question becomes, can the status quo eventually lead to a stable, pro-Western government in Baghdad. Unfortunately, I'd have to say no. The presence of foreign troops in Iraq is fueling the insurgency. If Pentagon estimates are to be believed, the number of active enemy combatants has not dropped significantly since the beginning of the insurgency, even though thousands of insurgents have been killed. That means they are adding to their numbers, either from native Iraqis angered by the occupation or foreign jihadists sneaking across Iraq's porous borders. The current troop levels in Iraq are insufficient to grind down the insurgency, so more are needed. Yet, US Army and Marine recruitment targets are consistently being missed, the National Guard has been greatly overutilized and coalition partners are reducing, not increasing deployments. There are no more troops available.

L-girl said...

Clear View:

My opposition to the Iraq war and occupation don't stem from ideology. That's a complete misreading of me.

I'm not sure what WWII has to do with this. I have certainly considered the possible consequences of troop withdrawal.

And sensible people mourn every american soldier and innocent iraqi killed. In wars, there are always casualties

Apparenly they don't mourn them enough.

"We're already there" and "more people died in other wars" are not reasons to continue a war!

Anonymous said...

"If Pentagon estimates are to be believed..."


You might as well believe Mother Goose.

L-girl on iPAQ

RobfromAlberta said...

Yes, well they certainly have no incentive to underestimate their success.

Anonymous said...

Their track record when it comes to honesty is not very good, is all.