The Political Identity of the Military

Does it have one? No.. but that doesn't stop Bush administration stooges at the DoD...

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday accused the Pentagon of impugning her patriotism simply because she raised questions about U.S. planning for the eventual withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

The politically heated back-and-forth began Thursday with a sharply worded missive from Eric Edelman, undersecretary of defense for policy, to Clinton warning that such questions boost enemy propaganda.

It makes sense for Clinton to ask about planning. After all, the administration didn't plan for the aftermath of the Iraq war, so their track record isn't terribly encouraging.

But this caused me to consider whether the US military is "conservative" or "liberal". Quite clearly the conservatives would have you think that they own the military and liberals are automatically "against the troops". You hear that slogan quite often, and we see it in this example with Clinton. We saw it in 2004 with the "Swiftboating" of John Kerry.

The truth is, the military is a tool, under the authority of the civilian leadership, whatever that leadership's ideology.

The lacky is;

Edelman, the undersecretary for policy at the Pentagon, is a former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, and a public feud between him and Clinton may win her points among anti-war voters and liberal Democrats, a critical constituency in primary voting.

And it seems his boss, Robert Gates disagrees;

"I have long been a staunch advocate of congressional oversight, first at the CIA and now at the Defense Department. I have said on several occasions in recent months that I believe that congressional debate on Iraq has been constructive and appropriate," said Gates.

That doesn't stop the right wing from using simple insult tactics to try and convince Americans that we need a perpetual war. I see it everywhere. Doug uses the same tired technique in virtually every post, but he takes it a step further by arguing against positions nobody has taken.

"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," Edelman wrote Clinton.

I still find it bizzare that everyone is so concerned about "terrorists" reading American newspapers and suddenly gaining courage they didn't have before because some Americans are debating perpetual war. It also does seem apparent to me that the Administration, and in particular this lacky Edelman, believes that our military should not have been withdrawn from the Vietnam bloodbath, the Lebanon civil war, and should simultaneously be deployed in Somalia - all while currently stretched thin and no draft.

Ugh.. what a moron.

Consider Vietnam today;

The country is listed among the "Next Eleven" economies; according to government figures GDP, growth was 8.17% in 2006, the second fastest growth rate among countries in East Asia and the fastest in Southeast Asia.

If the United States continued the war, it would be a continual bloodbath instead of the peace and emerging economy they have now.

The nation is Vietnam. It belongs to the Vietnamese, not a colony of the United States. I know Doug is upset about that because he bemoans we never "took the gloves off" in Vietnam either.. so we could.. what.. turn jungle into glass Doug?

Consider India, a former British Colony;

India (Hindi: भारत Bhārat; see also other names), officially known as the Republic of India, is a sovereign country in South Asia. It is the seventh-largest country by geographical area, the second most populous country, and the most populous liberal democracy in the world.

With the world's twelfth largest economy by market exchange rates and the third largest in purchasing power, India has made rapid economic progress in the last decade.

Should the British not have ended their occupation?

Of course, both nations have their problems, but the idea is that left to their own devices, they create their own success. Occupation never works..

I also find it ironic when Administration officials refer to our "allies" in Iraq. The hard-core right wing, like Doug, claim the war is not a "war on terror" but rather a "war on Islam". How can we have "allies" in Iraq when they are all Muslim? Shouldn't we be killing all the Iraqis, including the "unfortunate" women and children?

Again, I ask (and you loons never answer), what is winning? Suppose a miracle happens and the insurgency ends, and there is a peaceful Iraq. Do we withdraw our military? Iraq will still be Islamic. What will have been achieved? Isn't the goal of the military to annihilate Iraq and convert them all to Christianity?

And I'm not be flippant here. I'm asking a legitimate question. Can Iraq stand as an Islamic Republic? You loons define Islam as attempting to take over the world. How can we pacify Iraq and simply leave? Don't we need to kill everyone in it first, and then move onto Iran?

I'm just so fucking tired of your gross generalizations. "Take the gloves off". "Win the war". What the fuck is it that you actually want?