quote:

Jim Webb is a combat veteran and a war hero. His family has a long tradition of volunteering for military service, and his son, until several months ago, was deployed in Iraq. Sen. Webb wants to relieve a small portion of the shattering strain on our troops through legislation "requiring that active-duty troops and units have at least equal time at home as the length of their previous tour overseas." As Webb put it:

Now in the fifth year of ground operations in Iraq, this deck of cards has come crashing down on the backs of soldiers and Marines who have been deployed again and again, while the rest of the country sits back and debates Iraq as an intellectual or emotional exercise. . . .

Troops currently face extended deployments with insufficient "dwell time" to rest with families and friends, retrain, and re-equip before they are redeployed. The effects have been seen in rising mental health problems among service members serving multiple tours and falling retention rates for mid-grade officers and non-commissioned officers.

Fred Kagan, along with his writing partner Bill Kristol, specializes in planning and advocating more wars, always from afar. His family has a tradition of doing the same. His dad, whose career he has copied, is Donald Kagan, whom The Washington Post described as "a beloved father figure of the ascendant neoconservative movement." Several years ago, Fred co-wrote a book with his dad arguing that America is too afraid to fight wars and "that it will be in the world's ultimate interest for the United States to remain militarily strong and unafraid of a fight." Neither has ever fought anything.

Donald's other son -- Fred's brother -- is Robert, who founded Project for a New American Century with Bill Kristol and is a fanatical, resolute supporter of the Iraq War (from the pages of The Washington Post).

Fred's wife, Kimberly Kagan, regularly types about how great the Iraq War is in The Weekly Standard and other places. None has any military service. They have no need for the troop relief provided by the Webb bill (which Fred opposes) because they are already all sitting at home.

Fred Kagan yesterday went to National Review -- home to countless tough guy warriors like him who fight nothing -- to argue against Senator Webb's bill. There is no need to give our troops more time away from the battlefield, Kagan types. Besides, doing that would be too administratively difficult ("this amendment would actually require the Army and Marine Corps staffs to keep track of how long every individual servicemember had spent in either Iraq or Afghanistan, how long they had been at home, how long the unit that they were now in had spent deployed, and how long it had been home").

If troops want more time at home, Kagan says, there is an easy way to achieve that: "win the war we're fighting." Of course, that would not even work, because Kagan and his friends at the Weekly Standard and the American Enterprise Institute have many more wars planned beyond Iraq for other families' sons and daughters to fight. For that reason, Kagan actually had the audacity several months ago to type this:

The president must issue a personal call for young Americans to volunteer to fight in the decisive conflict of this generation.

That's the history of our country for the last six years at least. The Fred Kagans and his dad and his brother and his wife and his best friend Bill Kristol sit back casually demanding more wars, demanding that our troops be denied any relief, demanding that the President call for other families to volunteer to fight in their wars -- all "as an intellectual or emotional exercise," as Webb put it.

That's all revolting enough. But to then watch Fred Kagan sit around opposing Senator Webb's attempts to relieve some of the strain on our troops -- all because it would require too much paperwork to figure out and because they haven't yet won Fred Kagan's war and thus deserve no breaks -- is almost too much to bear. But it is worth forcing oneself to observe it, as unpleasant as it might be, because within this ugly dynamic lies much of the explanation for what has happened to our country since the 9/11 attack, and the personality type that continues to drive it today.

quote:

Originally posted by R102:
No surprises here. But thanks for the post.

Where are your from ANZACbiscuit? Australia or New Zealand? If not from either then why are you using ANZAC in the avatar. My great grandfather was a WW1 ANZAC.

quote:

Originally posted by ANZACbiscuit:


If troops want more time at home, Kagan says, there is an easy way to achieve that: "win the war we're fighting."
-

quote:

Originally posted by FortesFortunaJuvat:

quote:

Originally posted by ANZACbiscuit:


If troops want more time at home, Kagan says, there is an easy way to achieve that: "win the war we're fighting."
-

Wow... this turd really said that? I that that quote as if he's blaming the troops. I could be wrong though.

quote:

Originally posted by ANZACbiscuit:
Yeah, the dude is a jagoff. Reminds me of Rumsfeld (remember him?!) saying "you go to war with the army you have".

quote:

Originally posted by quietlunatic:

quote:

Originally posted by ANZACbiscuit:
Yeah, the dude is a jagoff. Reminds me of Rumsfeld (remember him?!) saying "you go to war with the army you have".

You seem to be begging a dumb question here:

How would a Nation be expected to go to war with an Army it DOESN'T have?

quote:

Originally posted by PhoenixDark:

quote:

Originally posted by quietlunatic:

quote:

Originally posted by ANZACbiscuit:
Yeah, the dude is a jagoff. Reminds me of Rumsfeld (remember him?!) saying "you go to war with the army you have".

You seem to be begging a dumb question here:

How would a Nation be expected to go to war with an Army it DOESN'T have?

Simple: don't go into an optional war if you don't have the military for it.

Iraq was and is an OPTIONAL war. There was no pressing need to invade Iraq, Saddam was more than sufficiently contained prior to the invasion. Kuwait could have gone in and taken down his military in 2002-2003 timeframe - thats how badly decimated the Iraqi military was not only from Gulf War I but from the subsequent years of sanctions.

quote:

Originally posted by quietlunatic:

quote:

Originally posted by ANZACbiscuit:
Yeah, the dude is a jagoff. Reminds me of Rumsfeld (remember him?!) saying "you go to war with the army you have".

You seem to be begging a dumb question here:

How would a Nation be expected to go to war with an Army it DOESN'T have?

quote:

Originally posted by Opfor6:
I think that reporters with out (Honorable) military experience shouldn't comment on war, battles, strategies, tactics, ROE, policy, unless they are actually in the war zone at the time of the battles, not three days latter. This includes every anchor, journalist/reporters, columnists and talk radio hosts.

I also think that before anyone can run for political offices they must have military service unless they are disabled in some way that prevents them from serving, though they should be prevented from serving on any commission that is related to the military or national security.

I'm not advocating universal service, but added incentive for serving.

This will facilitate two things. First is that their time in the service will give them the enough knowledge to understand our military and the dedication of our servicemen.

The second is that with luck the Darwin theory will take its toll on those that are stuck on stupid.

And dream a little dream with me...

quote:

Originally posted by Boospar:

quote:

Originally posted by Opfor6:
I think that reporters with out (Honorable) military experience shouldn't comment on war, battles, strategies, tactics, ROE, policy, unless they are actually in the war zone at the time of the battles, not three days latter. This includes every anchor, journalist/reporters, columnists and talk radio hosts.

I also think that before anyone can run for political offices they must have military service unless they are disabled in some way that prevents them from serving, though they should be prevented from serving on any commission that is related to the military or national security.

I'm not advocating universal service, but added incentive for serving.

This will facilitate two things. First is that their time in the service will give them the enough knowledge to understand our military and the dedication of our servicemen.

The second is that with luck the Darwin theory will take its toll on those that are stuck on stupid.

And dream a little dream with me...

Oh my goodness....if we imposed this standard we won't have the possibility of a President Hillary Clinton...hmmm.

quote:

Originally posted by SSgtRobertMorris:

Or Bill "The Dodger" Clinton.

quote:

Originally posted by SGTBJH:
Go to war with what you have. I went to DS/DS wearing black jungle boots because the sand boots were not being manufactured yet. I drove a M-54 series 5T cargo truck, we had M35A2C. We did ok. We won!

quote:

If any of you are cognizant enough to remember, the exact quote was "You go to war with the military you have, not the military you wish you had."

As far as Rummy, some of you dweebs should be half the manager he is. Drawdown?? Sure don't remember that one, except with a certain ex-president's early out incentives, that really decimated the force.

quote:

Originally posted by ANZACbiscuit:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by FortesFortunaJuvat:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ANZACbiscuit:


If troops want more time at home, Kagan says, there is an easy way to achieve that: "win the war we're fighting." quote:
Originally posted by ANZACbiscuit:
Yeah, the dude is a jagoff. Reminds me of Rumsfeld (remember him?!) saying "you go to war with the army you have".
-

quote:

Originally posted by The_Bonesaw:

quote:

Originally posted by SSgtRobertMorris:

Or Bill "The Dodger" Clinton.

Yep... lots of guys would have been excluded.

[IMG]

quote:

Originally posted by ANZACbiscuit:
-

Oops, I shouldn't have brought up the topic of Rumsfeld!!

Anyhoo, back to the topic. Webb's bill, which these right-wing chicken hawks were against, has been defeated.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-Iraq.html?_r=1...rz/PudLLKh3v9k2HLAgQ

-

quote:

Originally posted by jasu2:

quote:

Originally posted by ANZACbiscuit:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by FortesFortunaJuvat:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ANZACbiscuit:


If troops want more time at home, Kagan says, there is an easy way to achieve that: "win the war we're fighting." quote:
Originally posted by ANZACbiscuit:
Yeah, the dude is a jagoff. Reminds me of Rumsfeld (remember him?!) saying "you go to war with the army you have".
-

yeah what an idiot he was, i mean everyone knows you dream up an army before you go to war. Didnt he play command and conquer geez! I mean really everyone knows the army you go to war with is the one with every single piece of equipment it will ever need, and every single able body for every job filled, Didnt he read history, if he had he would had seen that any army in history has went in with a winning strategy and everything goes completely as planned. I mean really going to war and hitting snags? Thats unheard of, i mean really when has that ever happend???

quote:

Originally posted by jasu2:

quote:

Originally posted by ANZACbiscuit:
-

Oops, I shouldn't have brought up the topic of Rumsfeld!!

Anyhoo, back to the topic. Webb's bill, which these right-wing chicken hawks were against, has been defeated.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-Iraq.html?_r=1...rz/PudLLKh3v9k2HLAgQ

-

so tell me,, Mcain put forth the Exact same bill not more than 2 hours later , only non binding, and everyone that voted for webbs bill voted against Mcain's, exact same bill,, how does this happen. do democrats really want less time for soldiers? Or more power? Its all about power, and personally I think they all should be fired,

quote:

Originally posted by Boospar:

quote:

Originally posted by jasu2:

quote:

Originally posted by ANZACbiscuit:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by FortesFortunaJuvat:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ANZACbiscuit:


If troops want more time at home, Kagan says, there is an easy way to achieve that: "win the war we're fighting." quote:
Originally posted by ANZACbiscuit:
Yeah, the dude is a jagoff. Reminds me of Rumsfeld (remember him?!) saying "you go to war with the army you have".
-

yeah what an idiot he was, i mean everyone knows you dream up an army before you go to war. Didnt he play command and conquer geez! I mean really everyone knows the army you go to war with is the one with every single piece of equipment it will ever need, and every single able body for every job filled, Didnt he read history, if he had he would had seen that any army in history has went in with a winning strategy and everything goes completely as planned. I mean really going to war and hitting snags? Thats unheard of, i mean really when has that ever happend???

You forgot one thing...one never sets off to fight a war without a viable exit plan. What the heck was FDR thinking?

quote:

Originally posted by SSgtRobertMorris:

quote:

Originally posted by Boospar:

quote:

Originally posted by Opfor6:
I think that reporters with out (Honorable) military experience shouldn't comment on war, battles, strategies, tactics, ROE, policy, unless they are actually in the war zone at the time of the battles, not three days latter. This includes every anchor, journalist/reporters, columnists and talk radio hosts.

I also think that before anyone can run for political offices they must have military service unless they are disabled in some way that prevents them from serving, though they should be prevented from serving on any commission that is related to the military or national security.

I'm not advocating universal service, but added incentive for serving.

This will facilitate two things. First is that their time in the service will give them the enough knowledge to understand our military and the dedication of our servicemen.

The second is that with luck the Darwin theory will take its toll on those that are stuck on stupid.

And dream a little dream with me...

Oh my goodness....if we imposed this standard we won't have the possibility of a President Hillary Clinton...hmmm.

Or Bill "The Dodger" Clinton.

quote:

Originally posted by jasu2:

quote:

Originally posted by Boospar:

quote:

Originally posted by jasu2:

quote:

Originally posted by ANZACbiscuit:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by FortesFortunaJuvat:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ANZACbiscuit:


If troops want more time at home, Kagan says, there is an easy way to achieve that: "win the war we're fighting." quote:
Originally posted by ANZACbiscuit:
Yeah, the dude is a jagoff. Reminds me of Rumsfeld (remember him?!) saying "you go to war with the army you have".
-

yeah what an idiot he was, i mean everyone knows you dream up an army before you go to war. Didnt he play command and conquer geez! I mean really everyone knows the army you go to war with is the one with every single piece of equipment it will ever need, and every single able body for every job filled, Didnt he read history, if he had he would had seen that any army in history has went in with a winning strategy and everything goes completely as planned. I mean really going to war and hitting snags? Thats unheard of, i mean really when has that ever happend???

You forgot one thing...one never sets off to fight a war without a viable exit plan. What the heck was FDR thinking?

my bad i forgot about that. Every war ever fought has always had a perfect exit strategy, from everything going exactly as planned of course. How dare a war take longer than 2 weeks to be over. this Iraq thing has got to stop already, especially now that we can win it. We have to get out now and go back to making and equiping the mostest perfect army in the history of the world! I claim dibs on the first ray gun and the first x-1 space modulator!

quote:

To the conservatives who have never served

quote:

Mason City, Ia.: Isn't our ultimate problem that we've never had enough troops to police Iraq? But then our Army is already stretched to the limit. How can we expand our Army if recruitments are down? Bring back the draft? Then you'll see riots in every city in America.

Fred Kagan: We do need to expand the Army, and we can't bring back the draft. Not only would it lead to enormous public dissatisfaction, it would compromise the quality of the professional Army, which is not now ready in any way to accept a large influx of draftees. How can we resolve this conundrum? First, it would help if the President would actually stand up and call for young men and women to join the Army, something he has never done adequately. Second, it will probably be necessary to increase enlistment bonuses again. Third, the mere fact of a commitment to increasing the Army would, in my opinion, help recruit soldiers for it. A large part of the reason the Army has been having recruiting problems, I believe, is that it is well known that repeated deployments have become the norm and place an enormous strain on soldiers and their families. A larger Army would be able to reduce that strain significantly, making service much more attractive once again.

quote:

Originally posted by transport1:
If any of you are cognizant enough to remember, the exact quote was "You go to war with the military you have, not the military you wish you had."

As far as Rummy, some of you dweebs should be half the manager he is. Drawdown?? Sure don't remember that one, except with a certain ex-president's early out incentives, that really decimated the force.