Jim Davis wrote:Barber wrote:I don't agree that the party is not anti-war. It IS anti-war.[. . .]
But, back to the original point: you'll find that the Democratic party -- while Anti-War -- is not anti-military, a huge differentiation.
The Democrats have traditionally supported almost every military operation the US has ever been involved in, including this one, so I'm not sure where you're getting this anti-war vibe, Steve. Despite the frowny faces politicians make when soldiers die, they've had no problem conducting war as "politics by other means." Sure, no one likes war when it happens to them--but when it happens to other people, including our own troops? They eat that shit up!
As for the differentiation between "anti-war" and "anti-military," the recent surrender by the Dems over the funding bill shows how meaningless and debased the terms have become. The party line is that "We oppose the war, but we support the troops and therefore must fund them," which is inane. When Bush shows no sign of deviating from his policies even an iota, opposition to a war necessarily includes opposition to its funding. I oppose the war, and I also oppose the military having more money to conduct it, especially when it's doomed to failure. If that makes me anti-military, even if only in a strictly limited sense, then by all means, I'm anti-military. Unlike Bush and the Democrats who rolled over and signed off on the supplemental, however, I don't want to send more of our troops to what has increasingly become the equivalent of a meat-grinder.
You support the troops? Then bring them home. Anything else is like giving someone a lethal injection with a sterilized needle and then rubbing an alcohol wipe on the puncture wound. Sure, he's not going to die from infection, but there's this little problem of the poison . . .(One thing I would like to see changed, however, is the reference to War. We're not "warring" with anyone. Frankly, if it were a WAR we'd be firmly kicking someone's ass right now. This is an occupation as you noted above. Again, big difference.)
Eh, I don't see the big difference. Wars can go badly and they can also happen in the context of an occupation, which is exactly what's going on now.
I get the anti-war vibe based, admittedly, upon public statements and votes. Perhaps it's Anti THIS war that is a more appropriate commentary. Secondly, a "war" is conducted, tactically, in a different way than an occupation is. So far, unfortunately, the Bush administration has been running (again tactically) an occupation as if it were a war. On those two points we disagree as to the importance of "definitions".
But, what may come as a mind-numbing surprise to you, I agree with virtually everything else you wrote (highlighted in bold above, just for hoots).
But I will note, for posterity, that the military doesn't want to go to war. The number of "warmongering generals/admirals" in the U.S. military is far, far smaller than Hollywood would have you believe. In point of fact, having risen up through the ranks and performed many of the tasks which lead to the death of soldiers, most of them will fight when absolutely necessary -- and upon the orders of a cvilian authority -- but understanding much better than the politicians what, exactly, the true costs of political military decisions ARE. Why do you think Colin Powell was percieved as a dove in the midst of civilian hawks???
Military leaders understand what they are doing. They know they are leading some of their soldiers to their death. (And, in truth, most of the retired senior officers spoke up because they knew their serving counterparts could not.)
Unfortunately, to politicians who have never served (and this includes the Texas National Guard), those decisions have all the significance of a round of Stratego -- or worse, Global Thermonuclear War.
(Shall we play a game???")[/i]