Largely unrecognized by the American public, unacknowledged by those in power, and denied by professionals in uniform, the United States suffers today from an enduring crisis in civil-military relations. The tacit social contract of mutual rights, obligations and expectations that binds the three parties to this relationship—the military, its civilian overseers and society—is seriously frayed. This isn’t a crisis in the… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (29)Page 1 of 1 pagesThis crisis is more akin to a lymphoma or termite infestation ...
Termite infestation, guaranteed. Only a wooden-headed Progressive could find a problem which is “(l)argely unrecognized by the American public, unacknowledged by those in power, and denied by professionals in uniform” and which has no symptoms, as described in detail in the second paragraph of the article.
The American public is solidly behind the US Military, while respect for politicians is extremely low. So, Foster sees a problem with the military that no one else sees? Say what? So what?
The Progressives made a massive bet against the United States and its institutions, including the United States military, when they tried to upset the election and validity of President Bush and his policies against terrorism, policies that many Progressives voted for, including Clinton, Kerry, Biden, and Dodd.
The Progressives are now losing that bet. Panic time! Change the subject! Invent a problem that will cover the Progressives’ lack of progress, and blame it on the US military, the most respected public institution in the country.
Posted by scorp on Aug 5, 2007 at 8:48 AM Dr. Gregory D. Foster
Background:
Gregory D. Foster is Professor of Political Science at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, National Defense University, Washington, D.C., where he previously has served as George C. Marshall Professor and J. Carlton Ward Distinguished Professor and Director of Research. He also is Executive Director of the Defense Environmental Forum, a joint venture between the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations & Environment) and the President of the National Defense University.During his tenure at the Industrial College, he has served as director of the Elements of National Power course, the Values, Ethics, and Leadership program, the New Faculty Development program, and the Environment Industry Study group, while also teaching executive-level courses in political science, ethics, mobilization, national power, environmental security, social issues and national security, and strategic brainstorming.
A West Point graduate and former regular army officer, Mr. Foster holds a doctorate in public administration from The George Washington University. He has held adjunct faculty appointments at The Johns Hopkins University and The American University, where he has taught graduate courses in business ethics, management science, and public management. He has published widely in the areas of national security affairs, civil-military relations, ethics, public management, and futures research. His publications include The Strategic Dimension of Military Manpower (Ballinger, 1987) and Paradoxes of Power: The Military Establishment in the Eighties (Indiana University Press, 1983).
Prior to joining the faculty of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, Mr. Foster served as the first director of the National Defense University’s Command and Control Research Program. Before that, he held a number of research management posts in the private sector, including Director of Research and Manager of Washington Operations for the Foreign Policy Research Institute and Director of the Center for Security and Policy Studies, Science Applications, Inc.
Functional Expertise:
Public Administration, Organizational Theory and Behavior, Civil-Military Relations, Ethics, Environmental Security, Mobilization, Emergency Management, Strategy, Training/EducationRegional Expertise:
Europe, Asia-Pacific“Wooden-headed progressive”...? I don’t think so, Dumbo
Posted by Major Major on Aug 5, 2007 at 2:42 PM MM -
Every Progressive academic has impressive credentials and a wooden head. Ask Ward Churchill. Many people in positions of authority and responsibility are functional idiots. I first recognized this in the Army, and, to my surprise, discovered that the same thing was true in business, where you might think that the need for markets and profits might serve to discipline the organization. But no, there are idiots in business, as well as in the military. So, the first thing you have to do is to learn to distinguish the idiots from the non-idiots.
You particularly want to avoid those idiots who have a hidden agenda, such as Progressives, who have conveniently labeled themselves for us.
Progressives are big on nuance and meta-narratives, where they can describe things that are not obvious, to their own benefit, and to the detriment of the rest of us. Read the first two paragraphs of this article again.
So, why are we engaged in a discussion of the hidden relationship between military and civil affairs? In terms of American casualties, civilian casualties, and costs as a percentage of GDP, the Afghanistan-Iraq War is the most brilliantly successful military undertaking in history. The Middle East has the most concentrated ethnic, political, and economic conflicts in the world so it is vital that democracy prevail, and the conflicts of the centuries is ended.
But that is not what the Progressive meta-narrative tells us. (Note the Abu-Ghraib illustration for this article, a two-bit piece of foolishness for which the handful of perpetrators and negligent supervisors [idiots] have paid, and which should have been a minor footnote in history. Instead, it has become the most celebrated [by Progressives] event of the War).
Why are the Progressives lying to us about our brilliant success, and why are they in such a panic as that success becomes more obvious? Why is Foster trying to create an artificial conflict between the military and civilians, when the military is the most respected public institution in the nation?
The Collectivists, now calling themselves Progressives, have been trying to gain world-wide domination since the Communist Revolution in Russia in the early part of the Twentieth Century. Every time they gain power, they make a hash of it, but they are still trying. Telling lies is one of their political tactics, as Foster illustrates.
Posted by scorp on Aug 5, 2007 at 5:06 PM Rather than comment on the specifics of Foster’s points, scorp immediately veers into the partisan kneejerk by talking about Progressives. Foster didn’t mention them nor actual political parties. His points are about how functional militaries have acted previously and how far off those precedents our present-day military - and surrounding institutions - have become.
He concludes that we should not give it free passes, nor give blind trust to its overseers (our government and press) because doing so comes at an unaffordable price.
When you’ve been around the military life for many decades, your perspectives are based upon comparative experiences of how it has performed at its best and worst. It doesn’t require a party or ideological filter to note major signs of increasing trouble.
One example: despite limiting press access far more than occurred in Vietnam, despite an unusually low number of mainstream media correspondents inside Iraq, far more stories have emerged about criminal acts committed by soldiers and groups of soldiers than were reported in Vietnam. And that previous war was more than twice as long with 4 or 5 as many soldiers deployed.
That does suggest a breakdown in training and command structure. And that reporting has barely scratched what has gone on as a result of outsourcing to mercenaries and private contractors, where command lines and oversight are far thinner.
Go talk to the middle managers who run the day to day of the Army, the sergeants. Ask them if they see the trouble signs Foster does. Do so objectively, without adding your partisan filter.
We can and must be able to handle the truth. History’s full of powerful nations that have fallen, not because they were defeated in battle by superior firepower, but simply because they were decayed within by segments of their societies that put other interests above the central one of providing sound, thoroughly reviewed strategy and executing it efficiently.
One can choose to remain willfully blind to the areas he describes where troubling signs and patterns have emerged. But doing so imperils the country, which all of us - military and civilian - have a vested interest in, the highest vested interest of all.
Should we risk losing our country by casting such debates and reviews into partisan waters? Note that Foster never suggested where the beginnings of the faultlines occurred. He’s not saying this is Bush’s fault, nor Clinton’s, nor any prior administration. He’s simply saying where we have gotten ourselves to and that it’s dysfunctional and dangerous to let such dysfunctions continue to exist and grow.
Posted by Kevin Hayden on Aug 5, 2007 at 5:50 PM Forster has an impressive resumé.
However, he makes some pretty sweeping allegations and a cheap shots at “...retired generals who called for the ouster of then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (after they had their pensions safely in hand)”
If they were retired then, yes they would have a pension wouldn’t they. Should they then give it back? Keep quiet? What’s his point with this comment?
Others gave their opinions and were ignored? I saw no mention of them.
If Foster is still at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, National Defense University, Washington, D.C. is his pension safely in hand or is he going to refuse it as some dramatic, yet futile gesture?As always at the first opportunity politicians lop off manpower and did so with the fall of the Soviet Union as with V-E Day and V-J Day and the War to End Wars.
They were sent on a massive crusade to democratize an assortment of religious extremists, tribal oriented nomads wearing phony nationalistic labels stuck on nearly a century ago — hardly the mission our military was trained for.
Why blame the military? They are shorthanded, short on training for the mission, and have been short on supplies since they got there.
Why blame the Christians within the military? The most radical religious bunch now held in Gitmo allege a disrespect for their holy book and the media scream “foul!” But a general expresses his own personal religious view on individual sexual preferences and Foster can’t let it drop.
With his… “Functional Expertise: Public Administration, Organizational Theory and Behavior, Civil-Military Relations, Ethics, Environmental Security, Mobilization, Emergency Management, Strategy, Training/Education”
...Foster is in a position to either make the needed changes within the organization or — perhaps accept part of the blame for what he sees as the military’s major failings.
What does he expect of us?
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 5, 2007 at 9:03 PM Hayden -
One example: despite limiting press access far more than occurred in Vietnam, despite an unusually low number of mainstream media correspondents inside Iraq, far more stories have emerged about criminal acts committed by soldiers and groups of soldiers than were reported in Vietnam. ... That does suggest a breakdown in training and command structure.
You obviously were never in Vietnam. I was, twice. You are full of shit.
You have no recollection of My Lai, fragging, or combat refusals.
Those were parlous times in Vietnam and Iraq, in contrast, is a politically correct cakewalk in comparison. Ralph Peters has compiled some comparative figures, and the criminal activity by US military in Iraq is miniscule, not only in comparison with Vietnam, but with model American cities. As exaggerated as the reporting on Abu Ghraib was, you can bet your ass it got the attention of American commanders, and no violation, however slight, is overlooked or tolerated. There is a minimal number of crimes and incidents in Iraq, due to the superb leadership and the quality of the troops.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08032007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/troops__crimes_o opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm?page=0... the U.S. military almost invariably precipitates rather than prevents crisis; feeds perceptions abroad of American arrogance and hypocrisy, while undermining U.S. credibility and legitimacy; threatens, in single-mindedly providing for the common defense, other important dimensions of security (liberty, justice, the general welfare); and permits itself to be an instrument for the militarization of U.S. foreign policy. In short, it is strategically dysfunctional.
I suspect that the above makes perfect sense to a Progressive, but it is nonsense, if not insane. For example, can you give me any concrete examples where “the U.S. military (almost invariably) precipitates rather than prevents crisis”? What is the military supposed to do besides provide defense? Liberty, justice, the general welfare are not in the military writ, for gosh sakes. The military does not “permit(s) itself to be an instrument for the militarization of U.S. foreign policy”, the military had better tend to following legal orders. Foreign policy is not in the military writ either, and Foster knows that.
The tacit social contract of mutual rights, obligations and expectations that binds the three parties to this relationship - the military, its civilian overseers and society - is seriously frayed.
The military and society are in agreement, as Foster notes, “the public hold(s) the military in higher esteem than most other institutions of society. No fraying here. The only civilian overseer of the military is the Commander-in-Chief, President Bush, with his staff in the Executive Branch. No fraying here, either.
The Congress, and in particular the Progressives, are trying to insinuate themselves into the process. But the Constitution gives command of the military to the President, not to Murtha, or Pelosi, or Reid. Consequently, Foster is advocating a Progressive power grab in violation of the Constitution. That is what Progressives do, going back at least as far as Lenin.
Posted by scorp on Aug 6, 2007 at 4:17 AM Constitution gives command of the military to the President
Who has fucked up this war. If the whimp ass demos would just cut the money off to this war, that would take the power out of bush’s hands.
Just like viet-nam. End of story.
What happens when bush violates the constitution?
Excecutive privilege over rides the constitution? talk about a power grab.
That’s what neo-cons do.
Tricky dicky cheney doesn’t even know what branch of government he is in. What ever he feels like at the time.
Posted by brian28 on Aug 6, 2007 at 5:35 PM Since Gregory Foster is a West Point graduate, it is safe to assume he should know the civil-military relations during the Revolutionary War were less than satisfactory. In fact it would be difficult to choose a time when more stressed than then.
We constantly hear high percentages of the public want us out of Iraq. We now have heard of many dissenting opinions regarding our going into Iraq which were made by people with the credentials to give their views weight.
I hope Foster’s comment “...the public hold the military in higher esteem than most other institutions of society…” is common knowledge to our troops who are still there. (Foster finds the poll findings to be a mystery.)
What I find mysterious is how this man can be so down on his brothers and sisters in arms, his employer and his government (also his employer, I assume). How he comes across to those in any classes he may be conducting in national security affairs, civil-military relations, ethics, and public management. And, another mystery — why he still has his job.
He says the new army counterinsurgency field manual, “...is destined to have little enduring impact on how the military actually operates and sees itself.”
He alleges there are, “...hundreds of incidents of aberrant behavior by military personnel each year” and infers that episodes such as Abu Ghraib and Haditha ARE representative of the behavior of our military.
He seems to see himself as morally superior (his standard for being socially responsible), but not those he works with or he has been hired to instruct.
——————————— ;——
Perhaps we should admit and accept that the war has been mishandled in many ways. (Wars tend to be like that.) There are many problems and I should think good reasons for the military to be dissatisfied with the civilian lack of planning, support and impatience. I know I have felt that way.Perhaps Mr. foster would serve our country better with a few constructive suggestions on how to improve the situation were are in and avoid similar dilemmas in the future — less preaching and more guidance would be appreciated.
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 7, 2007 at 12:53 PM WTH -
Perhaps we should admit and accept that the war has been mishandled in many ways.
Name two.
Surely everyone understands that war is serious business, and blood and treasure will be expended. These two criteria are primary to the evaluation of any military endeavor.
At the time of the Iraq War Resolution 2002, the Pentagon estimated 5000 American combat deaths in Iraq. Hillary, Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Feinstein, Kerry, Reid, Rockefeller, and Schumer voted for this War, and these deaths, because it was vital to United States national interests.
Total American combat deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are now substantially less than 4000, in spite of an unanticipated (and strategically stupid) surge by al-Qa’eda into Iraq. The strategic importance of the Middle East has not changed. And all the Progressive sons-of-bitches (and Hillary) are screaming bloody murder, not because Bush did it wrong, but because he has handled it so well.
The same thing is true of the dollar cost of the war. As a percentage of GDP, the cost of Iraq/Afghanistan is an order of magnitude less than any previous war in American history. The deficit is falling at the same time the war is being pursued. This has never happened before in history, and is a direct result of President Bush’s superb management of the economy and of the war.
So either come up with some sort of justification for your absurd comment, or shut the fuck up.
Posted by scorp on Aug 7, 2007 at 7:46 PM Scorp,
“Name Two.”
Ok…
1. We went in with too few troops (125,000 — 1/4 what was called for) to establish and maintain order in a country of more than 20 million people.
2. The post combat phase was tossed back and forth between State Dept. and CENTCOM. Gen. Franks was finally given the task while he was in the midst of conducting the actual invasion.
Bonus problems:
3. Sec. Rumsfeld was so self confident his combat/light plan would result in the Iraqi army defecting to our side, that he did not even OK shipping the total supplies to Franks before the kickoff of the campaign. Franks was unsure what he would have and when he would get it.
4. Due to the troop shortage we have:
— pulled troops out of Iraqi cities and neighborhoods which left any people who cooperated with our guys vulnerable to retaliation by the bad guys.
— pulled additional forces from Afghanistan where we had some initial success and now the situation there is at risk.
5. We (Rumsfeld) replaced Garner with Bremer — the result a disbanded Iraqi army (out of work) with guns, Kicked out all Bathe party members from civilian jobs — total breakdown in infrastructure — power, water sanitation.
6. Excluded anyone with Middle East experience from participation in the project planning.
Most of the above screw ups could have been avoided by using the ten years of planning by CENTCOM.
I know there are reasons for civilian control over the military, but there are times to defer the life and death decisions to the people who have been there and know what works.
—————————Generals Zinni, Powell, MacKiernan and several others cautioned having enough for the post combat stage.
Recommended reading: • Cobra 2, by Michael Gordon and General Trainor
—————————wrong time and place, but…
“The deficit is falling at the same time the war is being pursued. This has never happened before in history, and is a direct result of President Bush’s superb management of the economy and of the war.”
You’re confused again with the above comment.
It’s the dollar that is falling.
As for Bush — I voted for him twice (actually against the other two idiots) but he can’t manage a three word sentence, much less an economy or a war.
Any success in either category is in spite of George. He and his father are both imitation Republicans and have given true conservatives a bad name.
He has pissed away our jobs, kissed Communist China’s ass to make the big corporate guys happy, allowed millions of illegal aliens to infest our cities with gangs, and continues to let poisonous food and toys flood our nations shelves.
Except for those things he’s just OK.
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 7, 2007 at 8:24 PM At the time of the Iraq War Resolution 2002, the Pentagon estimated 5000 American combat deaths in Iraq. Hillary, Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Feinstein, Kerry, Reid, Rockefeller, and Schumer voted for this War, and these deaths, because it was vital to United States national interests…..
And all the Progressive sons-of-bitches (and Hillary) are screaming bloody murder, not because Bush did it wrong, but because he has handled it so well.
Revisionist history at its best, coupled with the stalwart support of an authoritarian Constitution-breaker. Typified by the stubborn denial of reality by an obvious member of the 25% who drank the Kool-Aid.
I recommend a cessation of all pharmaceuticals and no visitors bearing logic, which is wasted on a patient who continues to stray from the article contents into hero-worshipping absurdities not seen since the days of Roy Rogers.
The Senators voted to permit the President to utilize the military with the intent of intimidating Saddam into permitting a resumption of UN inspections and surrendering WMDs. Kerry specifically stated that he expected Bush to return to Congress to seek authorization before declaring war.
Besides utilizing forged intelligence, overriding the majority opinion of US intelligence (including Colin Powell’s advice), the use of less than optimal forces the Pentagon was advising, the SecDef failed to secure stockpiles of weapons materials during the rush to Baghdad, had no plan for the occupation, billions of dollars remain unaccounted for and the resulting sectarian violence occurred exactly as predicted in the first Gulf War if Saddam had been toppled then.
Since then, Bush lost the propaganda War, the cIA surrendered any remaining moral high ground at Abu Ghraib, Geneva Convention accords have been violated, a US WMD spy operation was destroyed for political reasons, Al Qaida’s grown in Iraq and globally, US allies have been dismissed and insulted, the US Supreme Court has declared some acts illegal, hundreds of non-dangerous detainees have been released after being held incommunicado for several years, innocent Americans have been spied on illegally, and two thirds of Americans - and a larger percentage of Iraqis - seek a swift conclusion to our military involvement there.
Much of Iraq’s professional classes are refugees and hundreds of thousands have died due to the decisions of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld.
Al Qaida’s principal leaders thumb their noses at us regularly and the Bush administration has announced another attack may be imminent.
Generals who dissent are replaced with generals willing to say anything in oursuit if promotion.
Former defense officials and retired politicians from both major parties stand in opposition to our military involvement, and are ignored by the twenty five percenters.
Meanwhile Bush/Cheney cronies laugh all the way to the bank, where they deposit their war profiteering booty.
I don’t excuse the complicity of some elected Dems in these errors. And Foster’s article resists any partisan identification of those responsible for so many gaffes.
Yet all the facts in the world can’t change the opinion of those eager to pleasure their hero, George. Clearly, nothing is being gained debating a closed and narrow mind, so I’ll cease with this.
It will take till 2016 to undo all the damage done to our country in the past 6 years by the excutive branch’s actions. But if you want to believe otherwise, we will just have to persist with the serious people willing and able to cope with the strengthening of our country, government and military.
Posted by Kevin Hayden on Aug 7, 2007 at 9:38 PM WTH, Hayden -
“Too few troops”.
“State Dept. and CENTCOM”.
Ad infinitum, ad asinintiy.
According to the Progressives:
* Everything that George Bush did was bad.
* Everything George Bush did had the worst possible results.
* Everything that George Bush did was done for the worst possible reasons.
So, how in the hell did he fight two major wars which are having substantial success in spite of the Dims attempts to sell us out, and with BY FAR the fewest casualties and the least cost of any war in American history?
Why do you think we had too few troops, other than the Progressives have adopted this theme? Twice as many troops would have cost twice as much and would have provided twice as many targets, but the rationale behind across-the-board more troops is dubious. We have much more firepower than we need to fight a politically correct war. One thousand Arabic-speaking intel people would be more valuable than 100,000 additional troops, but we have had to develop this capability as it did not exist in large numbers in 2002. The development of this capability over time was necessary to the success that the Surge is now enjoying.
Immediately after 09/11, President Bush’s approval ratings were in the 90% range. The incessant whining of the Progressives on every silly-ass topic such as you have listed here has taken a toll on approval ratings, but has not taken a toll on Bush’s resolve to whip terrorism where ever it is found (preferably not in the USA) and to establish democracy in the Middle East, the most benighted corner of the globe outside of the US Congress.
Approval ratings are fickle. Approval for the War is rising rapidly as the Surge makes progress. That is why the Dims are panicking, for fear that President Bush and the USA will succeed in stopping terrorism and establishing democracy in the Middle East.
The deficit is falling. Look it up.
Enjoy.
Posted by scorp on Aug 8, 2007 at 4:53 AM Scorps’ definition of major war is sure different from mine.
Civilian control of the military is a given in a democracy. Who could have foreseen that a clueless underachiever draft dodger could ever be a President?
Rummy re-invented the military. Now, in the middle of a peace keeping mission where they are under daily attack, they are trying to overcome Rummys’ misguided notions.
Tommy Franks forgot that a General is responsible to and for his troops. He allowed Rummy to mirco-manage the invasion and put the troops at greater risk than they should have been in.
And, to top it it all off, Rummy was telling Duhbya in private that things were going to Hell in a handbasket, while publically proclaiming that all was well. And nothing was changed until it became obvious that the Republican’s would lose badly in the ‘06 elections. Suddenly it was time to change things.
Neo-cons tell us that being against the ‘war’ in Iraq is disrespecting the troops. Typical smoke and mirrors.
I am against the Iraq ego war that Duhbya is waging. But I admire the troops that know what many feel here in the States, but still show up and attempt to do an impossible job.
It’s just a crying shame that they don’t have a Commander-in-Chief that is worthy of them.
Posted by farmer on Aug 8, 2007 at 11:37 AM Hayden -
“Revisionist history at its best ... “
And you can point out a historical error or omission in my arguments?
Posted by scorp on Aug 8, 2007 at 11:41 AM Scorp,
Even though this was addressed to Hayden:
“And you can point out a historical error or omission in my arguments?”
I’ll try to help you understand.
Progressive attacks are misdirected here — I don’t care what they say, it is irrelevant to my comments.
• The cuts too .S. military strength are SOP, “... each time we have an outbreak of peace.” (to borrow from Archie Bunker) Pre WW2 we were down to a little over 100,000 troops due to the War to End All Wars twenty years earlier. In less time than this war has lasted we went from a depression to full out production and supplied the entire free world with everything from ammo to ships. (Tens of thousands of planes!)
Now because of each administration since Reagan wanted the economy to look better than reality, they have all cut our military capability. At the same time they have cut our manufacturing capability so that we are short everything. The latest shortage is .223 ammo for the M-16s! (Check it out before you blow your stack.)
• I already gave you a very good reference for the number of troops proposed by CENTCOM under Gen.Zinni. If you don’t want to read the book, go to amazon.com and read the reviews. (Cobra 2, by Michael Gordon and General Trainor)
• “...how in the hell did he (Bush) fight two major wars which are having substantial success in spite of the Dims attempts to sell us out, and with BY FAR the fewest casualties and the least cost of any war in American history?”
Two separate issues:1. Bush has never fought in any war. Don’t confuse who issued the orders with who had to do the job.
2. fewest casualties: We have a great record for reaching the wounded faster. Treatment starts immediately while transport gets quicker and wonders are performed.
In spite of bureaucratic screwups like Walter Reed our VA facilities are doing a super job with very little congressional help. My local VA clinic has had an immense increase in patients and my “annual” appointment is stretched farther out each year, but those who should get priority should come first.
• Approval ratings, good or bad are not reality — they are hyped either direction by the media. The administration’s handling of PR is pathetic. Rumsfeld’s arrogant, flip comments managed to anger even the most devout supporters of the war.
• The surge is too little and too late. Think about it — this has come to be reported and handled like a spectator event.
We talk about everything ahead of time. We tell the world how many more troops we are going to send, where they will go and how long they have to make a “success” of the assignment.We did the same stupid thing when we were “inspecting” Saddam’s facilities and looking for WMD.
If it weren’t for the lives it cost, this would make a great Peter Sellers movie plot.
All the bad guys need to do is move to a new location for their next suicide event.
• We needed to have a minimum of 500,000 troops before the insurgency managed to scare the native population into the silence of fear.
——————————-“The deficit is falling.”:
Get in touch — the numbers reported are for the Goldilocks Economy… Like that story they are also a fairy tale.
The war cost is largely “off budget spending.”The deficit is by the year — the national debt is generational!
The dollar has dropped over 20 pct in a year — check out commodities — they and anything else denominated in dollars are soaring in price. Why do you think there is always the qualifier, “... Excluding food and energy…” when talking about inflation.
(Go short stocks and the dollar — long on precious metals.)
We can talk about the economy again next year.
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 8, 2007 at 2:55 PM Approval for the War is rising rapidly as the Surge makes progress.Scorp,
is in a panic because he sees his neo-cons loosing, in every way. The war, the house, the senate, the presidency. He is not worth arguing with.
aug. 8 2007
(CBS) A CBS News poll shows Americans are increasingly dissatisfied with the Iraq war, President Bush and the Congress, as well as the overall direction of the country.More Americans than ever before, 77 percent, say the war is going badly, up from 66 percent just two months ago. Nearly half, 47 percent, say it’s going very badly.
While the springtime surge in U.S. troops to Iraq is now complete, more Americans than ever are calling for U.S. forces to withdraw. Sixty-six percent say the number of U.S. troops in Iraq should be decreased, including 40 percent who want all U.S. troops removed. That’s a 7-point increase since April.
HOW IS THE WAR GOING?
Well
22%
Badly
77%Fewer than one in five thinks that the troop increase is helping to improve the situation in Iraq, while about half think the war is actually creating more terrorists.
The poll has bad news for President Bush, too. His job approval rating slipped to 27 percent, his lowest number ever in a CBS News poll — 3 points less than last month and 1 point below his previous low of 28 percent in January. His disapproval rating is also at an all-time high of 65 percent.
It sure is rising rapidly.
.
Posted by brian28 on Aug 8, 2007 at 5:05 PM Brian,
I put very little weight on approval ratings or polls. Unless we know what was asked and how they mean very little and are easy to skew to suit the pollsters preference.
An example from my own experience…
Caller: I’d like to speak to a female employee.
Me: There are no female employees — (click)A few weeks later…
Caller: I’d like to speak to a female employee.
Me: I have no employees. Did you put me down last time as not hiring women?Caller: Yes.
The same goes for war polling…
If asked would you like to see our troops out of Iraq? Who would not?If asked do you think we should leave Iraq immediately? May give a lot different number.
IMO there is no way to win any conflict with half measures. That was the original problem (speaking only militarily) with our invasion of Iraq and continues to be the problem. We should either do whatever it takes to subdue the insurgency or leave entirely. To pull out some troops or pull out over a long time, a little at a time only puts the remainder at a far greater risk.
It’s like playing a hockey game with more and more team mates in the penalty box and the opposing team at full strength.As far as Bush’s performance (ignoring the polls)...
Trust is a delicate commodity. I wouldn’t care if he were as honest as Washington or Lincoln have been reputed to be…He doesn’t have to lie about anything his idiocy is enough by itself. A totally inept person should not be trusted with sharp instruments let alone a whole army.
Saying we are at a high terrorist risk, yet ignoring millions of foreigners here illegally or on visas, but with no monitoring of their whereabouts is unbelievably stupid.
Allowing dangerous food and other products to enter would be dumb under any conditions, but when “at war” is unforgivable.
Common sense says his ability to govern is close to zero.
I’m nearly 70 and can’t remember any president under any circumstance who created such a negative feeling among so many — regardless of party affiliation or ideology.
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 8, 2007 at 6:43 PM As much as I am against our troops being in Iraq, now that they have stayed so long and (more importantly) lost so many fellow soldiers, they need some kind of victory before withdrawal.
Soldiers morale is a very important part of any military unit. And the day will come when we will really need our military.
Too many Generals are more concerned with post retirement consultant job’s to be concerned with doing the right thing for the troops.
And Lord knows, Shrub is good at tossing bones to obedient follower’s.
A lot of the troops over there actuallt feel that they are doing some good.
Quite a few have the opposite opinion.
I personally know 1 Marine Sgt, who had planned making a career out of the Marines. He won’t go into a lot of details, but said, if you had seen what I have seen, you’d be quitting as well.
In certain isolated sections, progress is being made. Today. Tomorrow, that could easily change.
Biggest point is the release of the memo that Rummy sent Shrub saying that things were not going according to plan and estimate. And, even so, both still maintained publically that all was well.
Many would see a link between this Iraq situation and Jerry Clower’s Tree Climbing Coon Hunter, who, upon realizing that he had climbed a tree with a bob cat in it, told the fellows to shoot anyhow…One of us has got to have some relief.
Posted by farmer on Aug 8, 2007 at 9:13 PM On Aug. 1 Iraq’s largest Sunni Arab political bloc, the Accordance Front, announced its withdrawal from the splintering government, dealing another huge blow to al-Maliki’s hopes of maintaining a unity government.
Everybody in Iraq—politicians, political analysts, poets, scientists, porters - seems to agree that the U.S.-backed Iraqi government headed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is a total failure.
The Front has 44 of parliament’s 275 seats, and its withdrawal from the 14-month-old government is the second such action by a faction. Five ministers loyal to Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr quit the government in April to protest al-Maliki’s reluctance to announce a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.
One of the biggest blows to al-Maliki has come from the Iraqi army after Major General Babaker Zebari, a Kurd who was army chief of staff, resigned on Jul. 31 to leave for Kurdish controlled northern Iraq. The resignation of Maj. Gen Zebari was followed by the resignation of nine other generals in protest against “al-Maliki’s interference with their professional work, and the weakness of the defence minister.”
“Only those who have strong ties with Iran will stay with al-Maliki,” one of the nine officers told a source close to IPS. “We would rather be assassinated by death squads than be part of this government that insists on being sectarian and Iranian by all measures.”
Relations between Maliki and U.S. officials have also collapsed. Last weekend the Daily Telegraph in London reported that relations between the top U.S. general in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and al-Maliki are so bad that the Iraqi leader made a direct appeal U.S. President to George Bush for removal of Petraeus.
An Iraqi source said Maliki made the appeal to Bush through a video conference for Petraeus’s military strategy of arming Sunni tribal fighters to battle al-Qaeda to be abandoned.“He told Bush that if Petraeus continues, he would arm Shia militias,” the official said. “Bush told Maliki to calm down.”
“This American and Iranian made government in Baghdad was brought to power for known reasons,” Sheikh Ali Mansoor, a member of the Sunni anti-occupation group the Association of Muslim Scholars told IPS. “They brought in al-Maliki in order to pass laws that serve American interests, and to guarantee their long-term stay in Iraq. Now he is working for Iran, and Americans are losing Iraq once and for all.”
The Iraq government is falling apart. What part of this shit do you not understand. How are we winning the war?
Posted by brian28 on Aug 8, 2007 at 10:48 PM brian28
You don’t seriously expect the Shrub or any of his supporter’s to acknowledge reality, do you?
Posted by farmer on Aug 9, 2007 at 3:13 AM brian28
We have, or rather had, this paper called a Constitution that specified that the President was in charge of the Military. (Sadly, those men never dreamed that a person such as the Shrub would ever be President)
The President orders the Generals to go to war.
The Generals pass the order down the ranks.
The soldiers obey those orders.
This is a somewhat simplified version of all that goes on, but those are the main points.
You did notice that not one thing changed about this ‘war’ until Der Karl told the Shrub that the Republican’s were going to lose some seats to the Democrat’s.
Thus began this new version of Stay The Course.“Then why are we there killing u.s. soldiers? ” Are We killing US soldiers?
Granted,some folks actually voted for the Shrub. So as his supporter’s I guess you could loosely say that They are killing US soldiers.
The rest of us never saw a real reason to invade Iraq. WMD was the third or fourth ploy he used,and it worked.
Remember, First, it was Iraq supports al Oueda. That didn’t fly. Then there was the direct connection between Iraq and al Queda. ‘Cept there weren’t none. Then it became Saddam is a bad man. Yeah, but none of our business.
Then and only then, did Nuclear Weapons get mentioned. After that was discredited, it became WMD.
Posted by farmer on Aug 9, 2007 at 4:32 AM The surge in troops was to give the Iraq government time to get their shit together. They are on vacation, the government is falling apart and no political solution in site. So another 100 soldiers die this month.
al-Maliki is throwing in with iran’s president who is are enemy, see them on the news holding hands?
How many troops have to die, and how many years do you want to wait for the Iraq gov. to get it together. Even bush says you can’t win the war without a political solution.
It took over 20 years and 60,000 troops to die in viet-nam before we figured enough was enough. So I guess we have 15 more years and 18,000 troops to die before we get out of Iraq-nam.
Posted by brian28 on Aug 9, 2007 at 5:45 PM brian28
You and I are on the same side in this. Although I would like to see some kind of progress made before the troops leave, but only to improve their morale upon leaving without a clear cut victory.
Our military takes a raw recruit, sends him/her to boot camp for 6-8 weeks and then to Advanced Infantry or other schools for 8-10 weeks and then they are in the middle of a war.
We have been ‘training’ the Iraqi forces for over two years now and still they are unable to cope with anything that happens, unless US troops are with them.
People blindly listening to sound bites, plus the Electoral College are what got us to this point.
Shrub had never accomplished anything aside from being a father. Hell, even a crack head can do that.
That is why I could not believe that he could ever convince enough people that he was the man for the job.
And, he didn’t. Al got more votes, just not in the right states.
Posted by farmer on Aug 9, 2007 at 6:41 PM Brian,
“The surge in troops was to give the Iraq government time to get their shit together.”
Come on, we’re talking about a country which had 30 years under Saddam’s total rule.
We’re talking about a country which has never been a nation (in any traditional sense) in the lifetime of anyone living there.
We’re talking about such diverse groups as radical Islamist who are “commanded by their god” to kill anyone — that those who disagree with them will get the hell they deserve and those who agree will pass Go and immediately receive their reward. (A lot like “Kill them all and let God sort them out!”)And we’re talking about the secular people who would like to just get on with life in a 21st century way.
We’re asking our troops to train a bunch of people without even knowing for sure they aren’t training the guys who intend to kill them as soon as they get the chance. The same goes for turning the country over to the civilians.
If you’re old enough you may remember the TV show “To Tell the Truth.” To play we would people would come on stage all saying “I am the real Iraqi Good Guy.” Then the panel (our military) would ask questions and decide who was who.
In this game if you choose wrong it changes to the game “This is your life” and the odds are against the U.S. winning any prizes.
The surge should be given a chance to improve things without picking at the scab every day. I don’t see much hope without a military imposed sort of Pax Romana and we just do not have a large enough force for that.
The fault lies in the arrogance which made anyone think we could do such an enormous task. Being the “ Only Super Power” seems to have led to delusions of grandeur.
Fighting back at the terrorists and defending our country should/could be done without challenging centuries of ingrained factional hatreds to a war of attrition.It’s time to own up to dumb ideas and deal with the issues realistically. Islamic Terrorism has targeted more than the U.S. Democracy is a noble aim for those who want it enough to demand it and fight for it — it is not gained by inoculation from an outside source — it must come from within.
This problem goes back to at least 1921 when the British imposed the borders that have been fought over ever since. Oil has compounded the problems. If not for the modern world’s dependence on oil we would all be content to let them fight each other to the death in their sandbox.
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 10, 2007 at 8:16 PM About 70% of the US public wants out of this war. Even more Iraqis want the US military out of their country. The Iraq War was one of the biggest US foreign policy failures in history. And that is no meagre distinction.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Aug 17, 2007 at 10:19 PM Cabdriver,
Public polling is often misleading and always fickle.
If we don’t know how the questions were posed, the answers are questionable.
On 9/11 public opinion would most likely have been in favor of nuking any country believed to be attacking us since we had no idea of the extent of the operation while it was progressing.
Most of the problems we now face in the U.S. are due to a collection of stupid actions over several administrations. The residual emotions of the Viet Nam War (both pro and anti).
The constant attempts by politicians to make their economic era look better than reality — cut intellligence and military to the bone.
Another contributing factor is unrivaled greed as it spreads globally through transnational corporations.
There is a great disconnect between the average citizen and many of our national policies and an unconvincing attempt to guard against terrorist attacks.
Things move way too fast to govern by consensus and our election process still remains unaddressed. Remember the cries of “The Repulicans stole the election”? Did you hear any such comments when the Democrats took congress back?
The public memory is far too short and politicians know it.
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 19, 2007 at 4:12 PM Polling is all but a science. WTH is right that without knowing how the question was put to the respondants, we can’t really judge anything.
And neither Party can claim the high ground.
Shrub ‘led’ (fronted is more apt) the movement for war. Strange, since his own beliefs about joining the military don’t match his rhetoric now.
Most thinking American’s now will admit that we were lied to about the need for an invasion of Iraq.
Afghanistan was where the terrorist’s were, there and Pakistan. But Pakistan professes to be our ally, while dealing with the reality that its populace is sympathic to the terrorist’s, at least in part.
Shrubs’ total ignorance of the world, its peoples and their problems led him to think that half measures would suffice.
And even when his own Defense Secretary was telling him that things were nit getting any better, both of them publicly assured us that all is well, just give us some time.
That time is fast running out.
The General whose name I can’t spell, in charge in Iraq is pushing the Iraqis’ to step up and they don’t like that. That push from our military and civilian leaders was long over due.
Posted by farmer on Aug 19, 2007 at 6:30 PM Whether we leave Iraq next week or in 2 years, (which with our present manpower/equipment is impossible) the results will be the same there. Only our debt and loss of life will be affected.
The whole issue is so complex-easy to understand why the debate here has run out of steam. I see radical declines lately in online discussions all over the net. I sense many are starting to figure out that while there may be hope, it is for the planet, not us. Thus boards such as this are all dying.
Posted by recursive prophet on Sep 11, 2007 at 1:19 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Gregory D. Foster
- General Failure
An enduring crisis in civil-military relations threatens America's future - Route-Stepping? Our Way to WWIII
Scare-tactic allusions to war allow Bush to push an extremist agenda.
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2007 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
