"I definitely think that there needs to be a discussion about what our exit strategy is and when we implement that exit strategy," Gov. Kathleen Sebelius said about debate in Congress about a timetable in Iraq, the Lawrence Journal-World reported. One of Sebelius’ concerns is how the war is straining the Kansas National Guard, which has about 1,000 personnel deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan and along the U.S. Mexico border. "Our ability to respond in an effective manner to floods, tornadoes, hailstorms, moving our citizens to safety and security, is really compromised," she said. "Clearly it’s a huge homeland security concern."
And, Sebelius observed: "The sort of never-ending story with additional troops being sent on a regular basis, additional guardsmen and women, additional equipment, does not seem to be working very well."
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Daniel on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on So they said
65 Comments
Perhaps the place to start is to set benchmarks for successful performance of the ARI. They outnumber the dead-enders by about 100-to-1; they should be doing the fighting.
It IS time to define “job accomplished” and and exit strategyto be accomplished when a ralistic result has been accomplished
It’d be nice if governors stuck to running their states.
“…what our exit strategy is and when we implement that exit strategy,”"
I guess “exit strategy” sounds better that what she really means to say. Isn’t that right, you people?
Yea snarky, and it’d be nice if their National Guard units were left in place. And the ruined equipment repleced.
It’d be nice if people that supported the war like Snarky would fight it and pay for it.
But, by golly, he’s got a magnetic ribbon on the gas-guzzler!
Maybe we should be worrying about an exit strategy for Korea, or maybe Bosnia? (I noticed she didn’t seem to be concerned about the KNG that has had a constant presence in Kosovo, one of Clinton’s wars!) Then of course there is still our ‘army of occupation’ in Germany and Japan.
What a bunch of liberal ‘cut and run’ pantloads!
Hank
We gave Worst. President. Ever. FOUR YEARS to fix his stupid decision to invade.
Iraqi troops and police are still unable to impose order on the place. The Parliment was bombed yesterday.
At some point, one has to question whether Bush really wants stability there or not.
Looks to me like as long as there is chaos, Bush can justify staying.
So he makes sure there’s chaos . . .
The difference is hank, our presence in Bosnia is token as a part of a true multi-national force. Our main role there is to ’show the flag’ as a peace-keeping force. In fact, we have NOT been fighting a war there.
We have approximately 240,000 troops deployed in countries other than Iraq. That does not include the thousands of sailors deployed on missions other than supporting operations in Iraq.
Really folks, if we’re going to bring them home, why not make Germany and Japan responsible for their own self defense? Why should we continue to allow them to compete in our markets under our defensive umbrella?
Just wondering?
Hank
What a bunch of democratic BS. The only policy they have is to oppose any thing Bush is trying to do.
Let’s send troops to stop the genocide in Darfur, and pull them out of Iraq.
Only in the twisted upside down world of liberals!
Get a bunch of dupes to irrationally hate Bush, then they’ll fall for any stupid policy if it makes Bush look bad!
Hank
Yeah, how many troops do we have in Korea? (About 30,000) How many in Bosnia? (About 5,000?)
Not even close to Iraq.
Like shooting red herrings in a barrel
The Friedemann exit strategy: Leave.
I agree with a lot of that Hank – Germany and Japan are handling their defense. Are our troops there defending them or are they in a ‘forward position’ to go elsewhere? Korea should be defending itself – perhaps an air or naval base.
I think an interesting location for a ‘remote base’ might be back in Cam Ranh Bay. Not to fegend the country there but as a strategic location to lease.
cant type – fegend – defend
“What a bunch of democratic BS. The only policy they have is to oppose any thing Bush is trying to do.”
Bush is PNACing. Bad idea.
As for us “libs” having to make Bush look bad, sorry, Hank, he is doing that all by himself.
Most recent polls show him hovering in the low to mid 30 approval rating.
And that was before gasoline spiked upward . . . again . . .
you know it’s you damn liberals that gave the terrorists the balls and backbone to attack in the green zone
Heh, yeh, Boohoo.
And how’s that surge working out?
Death rate up 10 percent, according to General in charge.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/11/AR2007041102121.html?hpid=topnews
From February, when the security plan was launched, to March, the total number of deaths — civilians, Iraqi security forces and U.S. troops — rose by 10 percent, he said. “What does this mean? It means that we still have a lot of work to do,” Caldwell said.
San Francisco Chronicle
Iraqis united now — U.S. get outRobert Scheer, Creators Syndicate Inc.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
YOU HAVE to hand it to Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., for having the chutzpah to cite the fiercely anti-American rally that dominated the anniversary of Iraq’s fourth year of U.S. occupation as evidence that the troop “surge” is working. As opposed to Lieberman, who continues to act as President Bush’s over-eager lapdog, his masters in the White House knew better than to celebrate at this depressing moment.
After a weekend in which 10 U.S. soldiers were killed — four more were killed on Monday, totaling 45 already in April — and the citizens of once bustling Baghdad cowered in their homes under a U.S.-imposed round-the-clock curfew, Bush had the good sense for once to say not a word about the glorious “liberation” of Iraq. Instead, as Dana Milbank noted in the Washington Post, the president never mentioned Iraq in a 24-minute speech he gave on the happier subject of illegal immigration, nor did any of his top aides touch on the topic. The White House Web site ignored Iraq entirely under the heading “LATEST NEWS,” instead featuring Clifford the Big Red Dog’s romp at the South Lawn’s annual Easter egg hunt.
Meanwhile, back in liberated Iraq, the anniversary of Saddam Hussein’s overthrow was marked by only one sign of public response: In the Shiite holy city of Najaf, hundreds of thousands gathered to burn American flags and otherwise denounce the United States. “Yes! Yes! Iraq. No! No! America,” chanted the demonstrators organized by cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, reported the BBC. “We were liberated from Saddam. Now we need to be liberated again. Stop the suffering. Americans leave now.”
What part of “leave now” doesn’t Lieberman get? Speaking of the rally called by Sadr to blast the Americans as Iraq’s “arch enemy” and to demand “that the occupiers withdraw from our land,” Lieberman surreally sought to find a silver lining of support for U.S. policy: “[Sadr] is not calling for a resurgence of sectarian conflict. He’s striking a nationalist chord. He’s acknowledging that the surge is working,” he said.
Ugh. What tortured logic. Ponder that sentence for the sheer mendacity of its optimism, which conveniently ignores the fact that the nationalist chord is a stridently anti-American one. Yes, there were Sunni clerics in the Najaf march and Sadr’s followers heeded his call to wrap themselves, literally, in the Iraqi flag while shunning sectarian slogans — but what united them was the demand to end the U.S. occupation, which Lieberman so fervently supports.
So apparently the surge is working … to unite all Iraqis against us. As Hazim al-Araji, one of Sadr’s top Baghdad representatives described the by-all-accounts massive rally: “There are people here from all different parties and sects. We are all carrying the national flag, which is a symbol of unity. And we are all united in calling for the withdrawal of the Americans.”
What irony: The final refuge of the scoundrels who sold us on this war, Lieberman included, was that although it could not be justified by claims that Hussein had WMD or an alliance with al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, the invasion would implant American ideals of democracy on Iraqi soil. What is being implanted instead is a virulent anti-American and anti-Israeli nationalism, Sadr’s current cause, competing with a smoldering sectarian civil war, which this multitasking demagogue has also fueled. Yet, spinning like a top, Lieberman desperately finds solace in a resurgent Iraqi nationalism based on hatred of the United States.
It is true that Sadr has consistently opposed the breakup of Iraq into three ethnicity-based entities, but it is scant comfort that this son of a famed Shiite cleric killed by Saddam Hussein should now, in a sentiment that recent BBC/USA Today poll shows is shared by a majority of his countrymen, consider Iraq’s self-proclaimed liberators as evil occupiers. Indeed, the legacy of Bush’s invasion is that the tired anti-U.S. nationalism of Hussein, never endorsed by the Shiite majority, now has a virulent energy that it never previously possessed.
The only alternative to this Iraqi nationalism is not the democratic and pro-Israel fantasy of the neoconservatives like Lieberman who talked our clueless president into this irresponsible folly, but rather the subjection of Iraq to a Shiite militancy allied with Iran.
Sadr, who is rumored to be living these days in Iran, seems torn between those two futures, perhaps positioning himself to benefit, no matter which path proves more popular.
Colin Powell was only partially right when he warned of the impending U.S. invasion, “If you break it, you will own it.” What he didn’t add is that the locals will hate you for it, and try to kill you every day until you give it back.
Ah, but we’re making “progress” in Iraq.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Play/16241/1/TDS-Bush-Progress.wmv/
Withdrawal is something Sebelius’ father should have done, before she became a fertilized human embryo. We can talk about leaving Iraq when terrorists have stopped attacking and killing U.S. troops. Til then, we need to ruthlessly speed up our killing and capturing of terrorists in Iraq, wherever they hide. Limited warfare (=crippling our troops’ ability to attain military victory) didn’t work in Korea or Vietnam, and is not likely to work in Iraq. We had better find a more efficient method of global war on terror, if we don’t want to be playing cat-and-mouse with terrorist bombers in Kansas City and Wichita.
The terrorists will never stop killing, US troops or Iraqi civilians, unless they have total dominance, and everyone does as they say.
Limited warfare doesn’t work well–I agree, but too late to do little else, we are they under the auspices of an elected government
Yes, we do need a more efficient way to fight Gloabal terrrism, but as one of the good guys, most of those ways are closed off to use.
We need to define what a victory is, quickly achieve it, and get out.
I do not agree with the immediate pullout people, or the “peace with honor” program of the Viet Nam war.But, we do need to figure out what the hell a “WIN” is, complete the task, and leave
These one-shot, drive-by post-ers are just graffiti on the wall.
The stupidity of the post is only mitigated by its brevity.
Exit Strategy sounds like the motto for cheese-eating surrender monkeys.
(purposely enters inflammatory remark for the Libs)
EXTERMINATE ALL THE TOWELHEADS! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! KILL THEM ALL!
When we leave the Iraqis will turn on the other foreign invaders, Al-Quida. As long as we’re there Al-Quida is useful to the insurgents. Don’t think the Iraqis are going to run out a foreign occupier, just to let a band of rag tag Al-Quida dictate to them! Get real.Hank, how many lives and billions of dollars are the other deployments costing us? I bet Iraq is greater than all the others combined. And, we’re just getting started.
Wow, repube comes up with what he describes as an inflammatory remark. Problem is, it rates more as a humorous attempt at typical GOP logic.
1. Our soldiers in Japan and Germany, as well as those in most other places in the world, other than Iraq and Afghanistan, are not getting killed by insurgents coming into them with the sole purpose of killing American soldiers.
So Hank’s argument on that is blown out of the water.
2. I was a Bush supporter, but his, in my opinion, attempts to bypass the United States Constitution with such things as, the homeland security act and other things too numerable to fill this post with, killed that right quick. Damn, I hate it when I think for myself. But it’s something the gop should try sometime. I would bet if they did, they would swap parties in a new york minute.
3. The man is an egomaniac, one of the worst leaders we have ever had, a man who will send thousands of our finest to die in a war whose only purpose is to punish some tin pot dictator for threatening his dad.
Want more?
Gee– I thought it was for oil
What about our exit strategy in Bosnia?
Didn’t we just activate more guard units here in Kansas to go there?
What about the exit strategy for our National Gaurd members on the Mexico border?
“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
George WMD BUSH on Kosovo, Houston Chronicle (April 9, 1999)
Guess we still don;t have one. In Kosovo, or Iraq
Hank, I agree with you the US should pull its troops of Europe and Japan. Its almost 20 years since Communism fell in Europe, what exactly is the point of Nato, Someone please explain what Nato’s current mission is now.
“I would define the mission as to restoring Kosovo so the Kosovoians can move back in and at the same time teach Mr. Milosevic that NATO and its allies and the United States will not tolerate genocide.”
George The Hated BUSH On Kosovo, Houston Chronicle (April 9, 1999)
Yeah, Monk.
But you have to understand: when Shrub said “it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is,” he was lying.
Not to belabor the point, but it appears that the US may very well support genocide, as I can see it happening when the US leaves Iraq. I could be wrong, but I can see it
support = tolerate
Sorry
I am glad you cleared that up Republican… I was about to say those damn cheese eating surrender monkeys at it again! LoL
Sorry if I am losing it, but if you are identifying me as Republican, that would be incorrect
It’s ok littlejohn. Because politicans can use it for political fodder. They’ll blame it on Bush and the Republicans. Nevermind the people of Iraq.
I am not communicating well at all. I am A Republican, nominally, probably with more independant or libetarian leanings, but I am not the poster Republican. It seemed writerdog was trying to stick me with that, and I refuse
I think writerdog was commenting about Republican the username poster.
“What about our exit strategy in Bosnia?Didn’t we just activate more guard units here in Kansas to go there?”
“What about the exit strategy for our National guard members on the Mexico border?”
Gee, who put more guards in Bosnia and the border? Clinton? I don’t think so.
Towel Head — Nappy head — republican you can now join Imus in the dog house — you’ll love that having to be so close to an independent / liberal — but ya think alike
American Deaths total in combatSince war began (3/19/03): 3299 2697Since “Mission Accomplished” (5/1/03)3160 2589Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03):2838 2392Since Handover (6/29/04):2440 2064Since Election (1/31/05):1862 1601
HAVE WE WON YET?
Coming to a Dead End in IraqBy Joshua Holland, 4/11/03
A majority of Americans now favor ending the four-year-old occupation of Iraq. They’re not “choosing defeat,” as Dick Cheney and other Bushist dead-enders contend; defeat in Iraq has been thrust upon us by an Iraqi population that has finally lost whatever measure of patience they once had with a bumbling and often brutal imperial power. It’s now a matter of time before our strategic class — infused as it is with a profound sense of American exceptionalism — is capable of catching up with that reality.
That we’ve lost the battle for Iraq was clear in Najaf this past weekend, as hundreds of thousands of Shia took to the streets to protest the American occupation. Nationalist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr called America “the great evil” and urged his followers to unite in opposition to the U.S. presence. The protests continued into Monday; the Washington Post reported tens of thousands again marched peacefully on the anniversary of Saddam Hussein’s ouster, shouting: “No, no to the occupier. Yes, yes, to Iraq.” Demonstrators “burned and ripped apart American flags.”
The sentiment they expressed was nothing new; for two years, poll after poll has shown that large majorities of Iraqis of all ethnicities and sects want the U.S. to set a timeline for withdrawal. Most think that if the Iraqi government asked the Americans to leave, they wouldn’t honor the request (which no doubt accounts for the fact that six in ten support attacks on U.S. troops). A majority of Shias in Baghdad expect the security situation to deteriorate when the Americans leave, but they still want U.S. troops out of their country — that’s how thoroughly Iraqis’ “hearts and minds” have been lost.
A week before the demonstrations, there was another development that got less attention but was just as significant. Iraq’s most senior and revered Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, rejected an Iraqi government proposal to reverse the “de-Baathification” process that left hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Sunnis unemployed and disempowered and with nowhere to turn but toward the insurgency. The move to bring large numbers of Sunnis into the government was seen as a last grasp at national reconciliation.
We’ve lost in Iraq; the political process is at a dead end. Al-Sadr is lost, and he was our bulwark against the dominance of pro-Iranian factions in the Iraqi government; al Sistani is lost, and he was our bulwark against al Sadr’s nationalism; the Sunnis were lost to us long ago. The only horse we have in the race is the Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki — a beleaguered nag with little credibility among the Iraqi masses.
We’ve lost in Iraq, and it’s not the fault of the peace movement; nor is it because Americans didn’t buy enough yellow ribbon stickers or show enough intestinal fortitude. It’s not because Iraqis — or Arabs in general — are savages who are unable to participate in a democracy. It’s because the administration and its proxies in Baghdad have worn out their welcome with an abundance of violence and often casual cruelty, with a shocking lack of respect for the human rights of the Iraqi people and a stunning degree of often ideologically driven mismanagement.
That conclusion was detailed (yet again) comprehensively in a new, book-length report published by Yale University this week. The study, authored by Ali Allawi, an Iraqi government insider who has served at various times as Iraq’s Trade, Defense and Finance Minister since the government of Saddam Hussein was brought down in 2003, called the mismanagement “shocking” and said that, by 2007, Iraqis had completely “turned their backs on their would-be liberators.”
“The corroded and corrupt state of Saddam was replaced by the corroded, inefficient, incompetent and corrupt state of the new order,” writes Allawi. According to a review of the study by the Associated Press, Allawi contends it was the “monumental ignorance” of those in Washington, people without “the faintest idea of Iraq’s realities” who are to blame for the current state of affairs.
The disconnect between those, like Joe Lieberman, who accuse opponents of the U.S. occupation of “choosing defeat” and the reality in Iraq lies in what Allawi calls the “rank amateurism and swaggering arrogance” that’s marked the occupation from the beginning.
The idea that great powers are only defeated when they “choose” to be is understandable, in a sense. Certainly the military power of the U.S. remains unrivaled. But the fact remains that the United States is as poor at the use of “soft power” — diplomacy, development, nation-building — as it is proficient at blowing things up. If the mission — which has always been murky in its definition — had been just to kill a large number of Iraqis, our armed forces would certainly be up to the task. But the mission in Iraq, ostensibly, was to create a functional government. That’s not a military mission and it never was.
It required everything that U.S. foreign policy-makers lack: long-term thinking, the ability to put ideology to the side when pragmatism is required, respect for other countries’ sovereignty and, most of all, a collaborative rather than imperial view of the world.In that sense, we “lost” before the war was even begun.
SEE~ WE ARE WINNING —LETS SEND MORE TROOPS
From Times OnlineApril 11, 2007Life for ordinary Iraqis is worse than ever
Nico Hines
Life for ordinary Iraqis is getting worse as they try to live with a poor healthcare system, little electricity, a shortage of drinking water and bodies left lying on the streets in unsanitary conditions, according to a report by the Red Cross. After some of the most intense fighting in Baghdad for two months yesterday, which saw a heavy exchange of gunfire between insurgents and the US military, the bodies of twenty insurgents were still lying in the streets of the capital today.
The report by the Red Cross, published today, said: “The conflict in Iraq is inflicting immense suffering on the entire population. Civilians bear the brunt of the relentless violence and the extremely poor security conditions that are disrupting the lives and livelihoods of millions. Every day, dozens of people are killed and many more wounded.”Civilians bear the brunt of the relentless violence and the extremely poor security conditions that are disrupting the lives and livelihoods of millions. The plight of Iraqi civilians is a daily reminder of the fact that there has long been a failure to respect their lives and dignity.”
A mother living in Baghdad told the Red Cross that dead bodies were a constant reminder of the conflict. “The most important thing that anyone could do would be to help collect the bodies that line the streets in front of our homes every morning. No one dares touching them,” she said.
“For us it is unbearable to have to expose our children to such images every day as we try to bring them to school.” This morning a community leader from the Jihad area of west Baghdad pleaded with the Iraqi Interior Ministry to clear the bodies from the streets in the area. He said: “We have five bodies in the street and nobody dares to collect them.”Although the army does most of the fighting, it is left to the police to clear away the dead bodies.
Since the bombing of the Shia shrine of Samarra in February 2006 the increase in violence has seen more than 100,000 people displaced and an ever greater burden on the failing infrastructure in the country, according to the Red Cross report. Food, electricity and drinking water shortages have created a situation in Iraq which adversely affects everyone in the country, whether or not they are directly impacted by the violence. Displacement, as families flee the most dangerous regions of Iraq, has increased the pressure on services in other parts of the country. Abu Ahmed, from a displaced family said: “My family is Shiite. We live together with a Sunni family. Both families were forced to leave their homes by militias. There are 30 of us, sharing the same living space: 14 children and 14 adults, and grannies on both sides. We live on an abandoned construction site and protect ourselves from the weather with plastic sheets.”During the fighting yesterday in the Fadhil district of central Baghdad four Apache helicopters were hit, but not brought down. Sixteen US soldiers were wounded.
James Hider, The Times correspondent in Baghdad, explained that the infrastructure in Iraq was in crisis and showed little sign of improvement. “The entire healthcare system has collapsed. There are so few supplies that there are just 30 intensive care units in Baghdad and people are getting shot every day,” he said. “If you get shot in Iraq, they’ll patch you up, but you are going to die as there is no after care.”
“There are common complaints about water supply and the electricity is off all day, it hasn’t improved since the war. There was a demonstration in Sadr City over the lack of clean water and basic services.”The Red Cross report is published on the same day as reports from Oxfam and the Oxford Research Group claiming UK foreign policy in Iraq is fermenting further radical support and undermining the UK’s international reputation.
“Coming to a Dead End in IraqBy Joshua Holland, 4/11/03
A majority of Americans now favor ending the four-year-old occupation of Iraq.”
What kind of math is this?
picky — 4/11/07
The latest identifications reported by the military:
- Army Pfc. Kyle G. Bohrnsen, 22, Philipsburg, Mont.; died Tuesday in Baghdad of wounds suffered when his vehicle hit an explosive; assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colo.
- Army Sgt. Raymond S. Sevaaetasi, 29, Pago Pago, American Samoa; died Wednesday in Baghdad of wounds suffered when his vehicle struck an explosive; assigned to the 15th Brigade Support Battalion, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.
- Army Spc. Ismael G. Solorio, 21, San Luis, Ariz.; died Monday in Baghdad, when an explosive detonated near his vehicle; 2nd Battalion, 17th Field Artillery Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colo.
- Army Pfc. Brian L. Holden, 20, Claremont, N.C.; died Monday in Baghdad, when an explosive detonated near his vehicle; 2nd Battalion, 17th Field Artillery Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colo.
- Army Pvt. Brett A. Walton, 37, Hillsboro, Ore.; died Monday in Baghdad, when an explosive detonated near his vehicle; 2nd Battalion, 17th Field Artillery Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colo.The latest deaths reported by the military:
- Two soldiers were killed Thursday south of Baghdad.
- A soldier died Thursday when his vehicle was stuck by an explosive south of Baghdad.
- A soldier died Thursday of a non-combat related cause.
- A soldier was killed Thursday by small arms fire north of Baghdad.
—
If deaths are important to you Ken, why don’t you make a list of automobile deaths in the U.S. per day.
It’s much much larger.
Or the millions who died by insect borne diseases that could have been easily contained and erradicated if it weren’t for the left’s push to ban DDT.
Those dead bodies are on their greasy hands.
Regardless of how we got into Iraq, a sudden pull out isn’t really a viable option. We’re in a situation where we can’t afford to do anything but win. Somebody better come up with a better strategy than what we’ve got.
I don’t think it’s possible to “win” in Iraq, at least not in our lifetime.
I guess the blurry line of this conflict and debate, is what is considered winning and what is considered losing?
It is the nature of Bush’s collosal screw-up that *any* time American troops leave Iraq, it’ll look like Saigon in ‘75. Today, tomorrow, six months from now, next year, next presidential administration, or even Bush’s latest timetable “generations from now,” Iraq will collapse before it comes back.
The question is how many billions of American dollars and how many lives, legs, and buckets of blood will be spent to stave off the inevitable?
“Republican” uses that lame trick of trying to change the subject: “Look at all who die in traffic accidents,” he writes. Hmmm. I wonder if half-a-trillion dollars might be able to research safer cars and and highways? Or cleaner cars that don’t need Iraq’s or the Middle East’s oil?
One month of Iraq money could be dedicated to perfecting fetal transplantation — where accidental and unwanted fetuses could be removed from one woman’s uterus and transplanted into the welcoming wombs of pro-life activists! Imagine! Taking pro-war money and solving the pro-life controversy once and for all!
The only real question of government is determining how the public’s resources are expended. I posit that there are better things we could have done with the 3,000 plus American lives that have been lost in Iraq. There are plenty of wonderful things that could be achieved without pouring $5 Billion a month down the Iraqi rat hole.
(And we all know just who the rat is behind America’s inevitably lost war in Iraq.)
You make an excellent point LTPFTL!
Best post in awhile.
send the 70,000 illegals in Kansas to Iraq…
One thing I notice, is when you see the bio on the killed soldiers, they are disproportionately weighted to under 30. No wonder the slogan of the 70’s was ‘don’t trust anyone over 30′.If we leave because the Dem’s demand it you can bet that the righties, will be saying the blood bath is the fault of the dems., ignoring that the whole idea of the invasion was a foolish endeavour.
It seems the point of the Govs may have been overlooked. I was at a luncheon where the commander of the Kansas National Guard addressed the group. His talk backs up what the Gov is saying. He told us that when we send troops to Iraq, their equipment is shipped with them, it doesn’t come back. When Katrina happened, we were required to send equipment to Louisana and Mississippi, most of it didn’t come back.
At any one time, we have a fair percentage of our National Guardsmen away from the state, some to Iraq/Afganistan and some to other states to assist with disasters. Were we to have a major disaster here in Kansas, we would be hard pressed to come up with enough Guardsmen and equipment to do what would need to be done. If we had two at one time, we would not be able to meet the needs of the people in our state.
I think she is trying to look out for Kansas and the people of Kansas by wanting to have enough Guardsmen and equipment to handle their duties at home.
I know a bunch of Kansas National Guard personnel. Most of them signed up back when their committment was, “A weekend a month and two weeks a year.”
Yeah, they knew the government was lying to them; that they might be called to active duty if there were to be a disaster. They didn’t realize, however, that the disaster they’d be called to would be an offensive war halfway around the world.
What was particularly profound this evening as I was sharing a beer in a Kansas tavern with a KNG soldier was his comment about the most recent extention of service in Iraq to a 15-month deployment and the promised 12-months in the states after that deployment.
“They *promised* us a single 12-month deployment. What happened to *that* ‘promise?’”
It’s far too late to remind him that when he signed up they promised him “a weekend a month and two weeks a year.” I bought him another beer instead.
Sebelius is behaving like a sensible executive…displaying a quality that has been seriously lacking in the Oval Office for the past six years. When she became Governor she had a certain number of National Guard troops to turn to for help in the wake of a tornado or flood or blizzard or any number of predictable potential crises. That Kansas asset has been co-opted by George Bush’s little adventure in Iraq.
Unlike George W. Bush, Kathleen Sebelius recognizes there are consequnces to governmental mismanagement. Sending “Weekend Warriors” into the middle of an Arabic civil war for 12 (oops! Sorry, 15 months…but we “promise” you you’ll have 12 months at home…next time. Not like the last promises) months is a monumental example of Shrub’s mismanagement of the military and the valuable resources of the United States of America.
Of course the Republicans hate Sebelius. If people would stop objecting to George W. Bush, they’d get away with it.
To barrow of the long argued second amendment debate, it is pointed out that the standing citizen militia (National guard) is what was meant of the phrase “right to keep and bare arms”. The argument against private gun ownership has been that the National guard is there to do away with the need of the private citizens to keep weapons to defend the states and themselves against aggression.
But also it is a third tier in the defense of the country, first the standing national army, then the reserve units and finally the national guard as a last defense. First and foremost it is the guards duty to serve the interests of the state. Since that was the primary intent for its formation. Because of its status in the tier of national defense it has been the federal government who supplied the guard with it equipment. This generally means that the guard ends up with the surplus of the regular army. Since its primary function is as a last defense for the national.
The Governor is right to express a concern over the effect Iraq has been having upon the Kansas National guard. It is the states standing citizen militia.
She is expressing the “CUT AND RUN” attitude of democrats.
They don’t want to recognize the damage they are doing to our men and women in the military.
This kind of talk only gives the enemy more power.
If she and other democrats were really concerned they would stay focused and talk about the things that encourage our men and women who are making sure we stay the land of the free and save the negative for the enemy.
We don’t need no damn exit strategy, if we don’t ever plan on leaving!