George W's War

No one likes war.  War is an horrific affair, bloody, and expensive.  Sending our men and women into battle to perhaps die or be maimed is an unconscionable thought.
 
Yet some wars need to be waged, and someone needs to lead.  The citizenry and Congress are often ambivalent or largely opposed to any given war.  It's up to our leader to convince them.  That's why we call the leader "Commander-in-Chief".
 
George W.'s war was no different.  There was lots of resistance to it.  Many in Congress were vehemently against the idea.  The Commander-in-Chief had to lobby for legislative approval.
 
Along with supporters, George W. used the force of his convictions, the power of his title and every ounce of moral persuasion he could muster to rally support.  He had to assure Congress and the public that the war was morally justified, winnable and affordable.  Congress eventually came around and voted overwhelmingly to wage  war.
 
George W. then lobbied foreign governments for support.  But in the end, only one European nation helped us.  The rest of the world sat on its hands and watched.
  
 After a few quick victories, things started to go bad.  There were many dark days when all the news was discouraging.  Casualties began to mount.  It became obvious that our forces were too small.  Congress began to drag its feet about funding the effort.
  
 Many who had voted to support the war just a few years earlier were beginning to speak against it and accuse the Commander-in-Chief of misleading them.  Many critics began to call him incompetent, an idiot, and even a liar.  Journalists joined the negative chorus with a vengeance.
 
As the war entered its fourth year, the public began to grow weary of the conflict and the casualties.  George W.'s popularity plummeted.  Yet through it all, he stood firm, supporting the troops and endorsing the struggle.
 
Without his unwavering support, the war would have surely ended, then and there, in overwhelming and total defeat.  At this darkest of times, he began to make some changes.  More troops were added and trained.  Some advisers were shuffled, and new generals installed.
 
Then, unexpectedly and gradually, things began to improve.  Now it was the enemy that appeared to be growing weary of the lengthy conflict and losing support.  Victories began to come, and hope returned.
 
Many critics in Congress and the press said the improvements were just George W.'s good luck.  The progress, they said, would be temporary.  He knew, however, that in warfare good fortune counts.
 
Then, in the unlikeliest of circumstances and perhaps the most historic example of military luck, the enemy blundered and was resoundingly defeated.  After six long years of war, the Commander-in-Chief basked in a most hard-fought victory.
 
So on that historic day, Oct. 19, 1781, in a place called Yorktown, a satisfied George Washington sat upon his beautiful white horse and accepted the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, effectively ending the Revolutionary War.

 

What? Were you thinking of someone else?

This is a military unit designed for operations such as those that followed Hurricane Katrina.  Why does it exist? Incompetents like Fmr. Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin. 

Why no panicking over Noble Eagle? 

Whoever casts a vote for Obama-Biden is nothing more than a common thief.  Whoever fails to vote against them is nothing more than a moral coward.

I'm not concerned about this, the National Guard has been on hand to contain dangerous crowds before.  Besides which, the military has amazing nonlethal weapons nowadays.

 And just an aside for blonde, I believe members take an oath to fight america's enemies and those who wish to do her harm, foreign and domestic.  But no worries, right?  Peace activists NEVER get violent! 

The Avatar

On the bright side Unsane, your next deployment may just be in your hometown!  And you would STILL be wrong. 

In all likelyhood, if activated, I would be deployed to a "backfill" capacity while active duty units get deployed forward.  Although this does not mean I wouldn't get sent to a war zone; that is still entirely possible if the NCA deems fit to do so. 

For a San Antonio native, you have a LOT to learn about the military. 

Whoever casts a vote for Obama-Biden is nothing more than a common thief.  Whoever fails to vote against them is nothing more than a moral coward.

Like many in the scientific world have been reminded, you usually only find what you are looking for to the detriment of more open lines of inquiry. If you are looking for fascism you just might find it but it is more likely, imo, that you will be blindsided by the Marxist bus while looking the wrong way. You distrust the size and power that the US military represents and at times has demonstrated. However, you have not yet given any credit to neither incalculable amount of restraint of military power shown nor the amount of good deeds performed by the military personnel both tangible and intangible. If the US was to have adapted the Imperialist or Fascist mode of war by performing something akin to a blitzkrieg of Iraq then we could have cut our casualties down to nothing, taken over the oil fields and used those profits to defend the fields and rebuild a colony of the US. Besides the obvious foreign relations nightmare created by this situation it was not done for the reasons that the politicians, the military nor the people would have supported such a massacre. Please disregard the argument for the moment of whether we should have gone in at all as it is not pertinent to the point I am trying to make at this point. That point is that our military that seems to be a point of contention doesn’t act in the fashion demonstrated by previous fascist regimes. In fact previous regimes thought that ending the war rapidly by any means possible was the most humane action they could take and yet we drag out a war for years not to save our own troops but to reduce the deaths of the civilian population of a once enemy country.
For sake of disclosure, I’m not a supporter of any person that ran for president and while I do lean heavily toward the Republican party most of the time it is generally because it is my opinion that in this mixed economy we need to stay to the level of 30% (purely arbitrary value assignment based on my estimate of wealth confiscation and government involvement) or less federal government in order to maintain a cyclically increasing atmosphere of business growth.
You will have to be more specific about the following statement, “…look at what William Ayers did 30 years ago and compare it to what this Republican administration has done for the last 5 years. Far more atrocities have come at their hands than Ayers, so I find it foolish to try to make him out to be the boogeyman.” Either I am not understanding your point or this is so over the top in context and blatant hyperbole that it would do neither of us justice to pursue a discussion of this point. While I do agree making Ayers previous actions out to be any worse than what he has done in the last 20 years is a mistake. As far as foreign policies between Bush and McCain are concerned you may be right but it is my opinion that McCain would never have gone into Iraq. I believe he would have made his stand in Afghanistan and risked escalation with Pakistan. It is also my opinion that this scenario would have cost many more lives and would have left the US surrounded by enemies as former political/religious combatants would align to oppose Western opposition in much more substantial way then they are today.
I absolutely agree with your assessment of taxes in the US. I try to keep separate the problems of state and federal taxes because I find one to be consistently unconstitutional and the other to be simply wrong. There is no such thing in actual practice as a purely socialist or purely capitalist society. But the mix needs to be such that it doesn’t overly inhibit growth or ingenuity but has enough regulatory power to maintain a fair balance field of competition (the reason political corruption is so dangerous). The programs that President Obama has supported, the promises he has made during his campaign and the social changes he has preached leads to one conclusion – a significant increase in the size of the federal government, the influence of federal government and the intrusion of federal government on individual lives. Senator McCain would have been bad – President Obama will be worse.