surge

[RDixon]

My ex-girlfriend's son just got out of the army.
He spent 2 years in Iraq.
Had a relatively safe job; unloading / loading cargo planes.
He says he is considering re-uping, but is waiting to see if they will up their bonus offer for it.
I ask him what if he rejoins and they decide to change his job?
He said he wouldn't like that too much.

He has been out for 5 months now and has received 6 letters from the army wanting him to rejoin so far.

He's still enjoying the new harley sportster he paid cash for the same day he got home and still has some savings left.
He will probably sign back up and go back to Iraq when he is broke.

To him it is just a job; a job that pays pretty well considering his limited education.

[JackSpratts]

Originally Posted by RDixon

To him it is just a job; a job that pays pretty well considering his limited education.

same for most of the enlistees and guardspeople i speak to. it's there but they're not real big on the hero thing. the pay is pretty good and the job during peacetime anyway, (remember that?) relatively safe.

- js.

[RDixon]

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/0...-in-the-ranks/

“Any troop increase over here will just produce more sitting ducks, more targets,” said Sergeant Ronn Cantu, who is serving in Iraq.

wonder if we will see this on any of the so-called news channels?

[Mazer]

“Any troop increase over here will just produce more sitting ducks, more targets,” said Sergeant Ronn Cantu, who is serving in Iraq.

As a non-commissioned officer he can't possibly know this, but it makes for great propaganda doesn't it?

[RDixon]

now maze, support the troops...
and don't forget to mention "liberal rag" when noting the paper it is in.

[Mazer]

It's the Wall Street Journal, Dix. Not as conservative as Forbes, but definitely not a liberal rag. They blogged the quote because it was said, you posted it here because you agree with it. News is only propaganda when it's used as such, and in this instance you were and the WSJ was not, hence my sarcasm.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Mazer

As a non-commissioned officer he can't possibly know this, but it makes for great propaganda doesn't it?

well, if it's noncom status of the source that's at issue, then perhaps these guys are a bit more credible for you:

A panel of retired generals told a United States Senate committee today that sending 21,500 additional troops to Iraq will do little to solve the underlying political problems in the country.

“Too little and too late,” is the way Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, a former chief of the Central Command, described the effort to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The additional troops are intended to help pacify Baghdad and a restive province, but General Hoar said American leaders had failed to understand the political forces at work in the country. “The solution is political, not military,” he said.

“A fool’s errand,” was the judgment of Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, who commanded troops in the first Gulf War. He said other countries had concluded that the effort in Iraq was not succeeding, noting that “our allies are leaving us and will be gone by summer.”

Describing the situation in Iraq as “desperate but not terminal,” he said Iraqis had to try to make political deals domestically and negotiate for stability with neighboring nations, particularly Syria and Iran.

The American effort in Iraq has gone badly because the United States did not understand the consequences of deposing Saddam Hussein, said Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, a former director of the National Security Agency. He said the principal beneficiary of the war was Iran and Al Qaeda, not the United States.

“There is no way to win a war that is not in your interests,” he said.

In statements and in questioning, senators were skeptical about the increased commitment of troops and the likely outcome of the deployment. Senator Richard Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, noted that he had raised questions about the effort in Iraq as long ago as 2003, and said, “Today, I don’t have an understanding about how it will work militarily.”

One general warned that even a plan to start withdrawing American forces from the country carried the risk that the armed Iraqi population will step up the level of attacks. “We will be shot at as we are going out.” said Gen. Jack Keane, a former vice chief of staff of the Army.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/wo...rtner=homepage

[theknife]

CBS interview with Nancy Pelosi, wherein Bush's "new plan" is revealed to be a continuation of the Tinkerbell strategy: wishing will make it so.

In an interview, Pelosi also said she was puzzled by what she considered the president's minimalist explanation for his confidence in the new surge of 21,500 U.S. troops that he has presented as the crux of a new "way forward" for U.S. forces in Iraq.

"He's tried this two times — it's failed twice," the California Democrat said. "I asked him at the White House, 'Mr. President, why do you think this time it's going to work?' And he said, 'Because I told them it had to.' "

Asked if the president had elaborated, she added that he simply said, " 'I told them that they had to.' That was the end of it. That's the way it is."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2397489.shtml

[daddydirt]

B-U-M-P

Lincoln had many setbacks throughout the Civil War until he found the right man....General Grant.

Bush had many setbacks throughout the Iraq War until he found the right man....General Petraeus.

hmmm....wonder if any of our resident geniuses will admit they were even a tiny bit wrong.

doubt it.

P.S. Merry Fitzmas everyone!!