Waldo Jaquith (JAKE-with) is an open government technologist who lives near Charlottesville, VA, USA. more »
View more posts
14 replies on “How bad have things gotten in Iraq?”
Is this your new m.o. – intentionally misstating the point of an article? I’m assuming you read more than just the headline. The thrust behind the Marine Corps’ desire to ‘get out’ of Iraq has nothing to do with ‘how bad’ things are, but rather for increased efficiency for both the Marines and the Army.
But you knew that. :-)
Right. I’m sure they’re having a great time over there.
Going for the nobel prize for obtuseness here?
The marines apparently are getting bored in Iraq, because it’s settling down, so now they want to go where the action is, Afghanistan.
Do you think Marines want to LEAVE the hot spot to go to somewhere safer? That’s not OUR Marines.
1,2,3,4,
I love the Marine Corps.
What with the Sunni/Shia detente stretching lazily into the future, it appears America’s premier warriors want a new assignment. Go figure.
1,2,3,4,
I love the Marine Corps.
For real? When did you enlist?
I just like ’em. I don’t play for the Redskins either, but I like them too.
Is your comment a precursor to the vaunted “chickenhawk” argument where one isn’t allowed to support the military unless one has served in uniform? The intellectual rigorousness of that argument suits modern liberalism well.
No, It is the precursor (for me) to the argument that if we loved the Marines and every other soldier so much, we would quit making them fight a losing and unpopular war.
I don’t speak for MB, but I just thought I would put my $.02 in here.
If this government supported the troops any more, like they are now, there wouldn’t be enough troops to protect even our own country. Something about not enough body armor and unprotected vehicles that doesn’t say support.
Oh, and all that falderal about Sunni and Shi’a detente is just that. The government there will never reach the goals that have been set for them, so it is unlikely that the goal will stay the same. A new goal will have to be rolled out, let’s call it Iraq v2.38, that we will just settle for getting the hell out of their country.
“I love the Marine Corps. But frankly, I think this is a bit of a stunt,” said Dan Goure, vice president of the Lexington Institute, a nonprofit think tank in Arlington, Va.
Goure said the Corps might be trying to wiggle out of the politically controversial Iraq war and take on a prominent role in the more widely accepted and clearly defined mission in Afghanistan.
If the Marines can leave under honorable terms, they won’t have to be part of the contingent that pulls out in relative failure somewhere down the line.
I know better, but it is still surprising me to see the various branches of the armed forces acting like political entities with conflicting agendas . . . I think we are so used to thinking of the as simply saluting and doing the bidding of the civilian government.
The Navy has its own “army” and “air force.” You might figure the Navy would want its own war.
There is a precedent here I am surprised no one mentioned. During WWII, the Marines fought the Pacific battles and the Army fought the war Europe and Africa.
Note also that our forebears fought different countries in vastly different theatres. Yet they evidenced no confusion that all this fighting was not all part of the same war. Although vastly different in many ways, each of the Axis powers posed the same identical threat, fascist tyranny.
Are our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan essentially the same? I expect the average Marine thinks so, but try getting the Democratic Party or the New York Times to admit that.
Citizen Tom,
You are absolutely wrong. The Army did fight in the Pacific. Look it up.
Also, do you think Marines are stupid? Is that an insult?
I have acquaintances and family who have served in Iraq, and they are able to see in a couple more shades of grey than you give them credit.
Uh. Yeah. The Army had everything to do with the war in the Pacific. Who, exactly, do you think bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
If you look hard enough, I am sure you can find that some marines served in the European theatre too.
Undoubtedly, you can also find marines on both sides of any issue and at various shades of gray. Even grey can be spelled in different ways.
Would we even have a republic if all share the same opinion? Not likely. In fact, from day to day, each of us even is allowed to change his mind.
Anyway, I love this quote. So I could not refrain from the opportunity to use it. No offense intended. ;-)
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
–R.W. Emerson, Self-Reliance
“I am sure you can find that some marines served in the European theatre too.”
Nope, not really . . . maybe a few. The Pacific was primarily a navy war, hence the dominate role of their infantry.
But the US Army played an integral role in the war in the Pacific: the western Pacific theater, the Marianas and Palaus, at a cost of about 8,000 dead.
And as Waldo points out the air war against Japan–the Air Force didn’t exist as a separate branch during WWII; it was an arm of the US Army.
Also, I do love the Emerson quote, one of the best. I would also add that I think his emphaisis in on the foolish part.
Is this your new m.o. – intentionally misstating the point of an article? I’m assuming you read more than just the headline. The thrust behind the Marine Corps’ desire to ‘get out’ of Iraq has nothing to do with ‘how bad’ things are, but rather for increased efficiency for both the Marines and the Army.
But you knew that. :-)
Right. I’m sure they’re having a great time over there.
Going for the nobel prize for obtuseness here?
The marines apparently are getting bored in Iraq, because it’s settling down, so now they want to go where the action is, Afghanistan.
Do you think Marines want to LEAVE the hot spot to go to somewhere safer? That’s not OUR Marines.
1,2,3,4,
I love the Marine Corps.
What with the Sunni/Shia detente stretching lazily into the future, it appears America’s premier warriors want a new assignment. Go figure.
For real? When did you enlist?
I just like ’em. I don’t play for the Redskins either, but I like them too.
Is your comment a precursor to the vaunted “chickenhawk” argument where one isn’t allowed to support the military unless one has served in uniform? The intellectual rigorousness of that argument suits modern liberalism well.
No, It is the precursor (for me) to the argument that if we loved the Marines and every other soldier so much, we would quit making them fight a losing and unpopular war.
I don’t speak for MB, but I just thought I would put my $.02 in here.
If this government supported the troops any more, like they are now, there wouldn’t be enough troops to protect even our own country. Something about not enough body armor and unprotected vehicles that doesn’t say support.
Oh, and all that falderal about Sunni and Shi’a detente is just that. The government there will never reach the goals that have been set for them, so it is unlikely that the goal will stay the same. A new goal will have to be rolled out, let’s call it Iraq v2.38, that we will just settle for getting the hell out of their country.
From the San Diego Union Tribune:
If the Marines can leave under honorable terms, they won’t have to be part of the contingent that pulls out in relative failure somewhere down the line.
I know better, but it is still surprising me to see the various branches of the armed forces acting like political entities with conflicting agendas . . . I think we are so used to thinking of the as simply saluting and doing the bidding of the civilian government.
The Navy has its own “army” and “air force.” You might figure the Navy would want its own war.
There is a precedent here I am surprised no one mentioned. During WWII, the Marines fought the Pacific battles and the Army fought the war Europe and Africa.
Note also that our forebears fought different countries in vastly different theatres. Yet they evidenced no confusion that all this fighting was not all part of the same war. Although vastly different in many ways, each of the Axis powers posed the same identical threat, fascist tyranny.
Are our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan essentially the same? I expect the average Marine thinks so, but try getting the Democratic Party or the New York Times to admit that.
Citizen Tom,
You are absolutely wrong. The Army did fight in the Pacific. Look it up.
Also, do you think Marines are stupid? Is that an insult?
I have acquaintances and family who have served in Iraq, and they are able to see in a couple more shades of grey than you give them credit.
Uh. Yeah. The Army had everything to do with the war in the Pacific. Who, exactly, do you think bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
If you look hard enough, I am sure you can find that some marines served in the European theatre too.
Undoubtedly, you can also find marines on both sides of any issue and at various shades of gray. Even grey can be spelled in different ways.
Would we even have a republic if all share the same opinion? Not likely. In fact, from day to day, each of us even is allowed to change his mind.
Anyway, I love this quote. So I could not refrain from the opportunity to use it. No offense intended. ;-)
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
–R.W. Emerson, Self-Reliance
“I am sure you can find that some marines served in the European theatre too.”
Nope, not really . . . maybe a few. The Pacific was primarily a navy war, hence the dominate role of their infantry.
But the US Army played an integral role in the war in the Pacific: the western Pacific theater, the Marianas and Palaus, at a cost of about 8,000 dead.
And as Waldo points out the air war against Japan–the Air Force didn’t exist as a separate branch during WWII; it was an arm of the US Army.
Also, I do love the Emerson quote, one of the best. I would also add that I think his emphaisis in on the foolish part.