Let's get real. Soldiers in Iraq are not defending America.

[Postman]

They are carrying out a Hitleresque policy of invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation that was never a threat to US national security for the benefit of corporations, businesses and private security firms looking to fatten their pockets.

[MrModerate]

1. That's as may be . . .

But it's not what they've been *told* they're doing, it's not what they *think* they're doing, and it's not what nonpolitical-junkies *believe* they're doing.

Their belief trumps your rant, which is why Obama and Clinton feel a need to tiptoe around the issue.

[Postman]

2. I understand that.

Self deception is a necessity to live the lie.

[MrModerate]

6. That's still pretty dismissive.

You probably understand how hierarchical organizations work, both in terms of behavior and belief. To characterize that as "living the lie," seems overly simplified to me.

It's not a "Hitlerian occupation" at all. That lends the whole clusterfuck too much credibility.

It's the deep muddy and the damn fool says to go on.

[Postman]

7. Do you think a majority of occupation troops in Iraq now believe Iraq had connections to 9/11?

Do you think a majority now believe Iraq was 45 minutes from a nuclear launch?

Do you think a majority now believe Saddam Hussein was allied with Al Qaeda?


I'd say a fair amount of self deception happens in a humvee traveling in a convoy ferrying oil pipeline parts through the now mean streets of Iraq praying they aren't IED'd.

[MrModerate]

11. No, I think they realize it's a quagmire . . .

That they've been lied to and/or misled by incompetent leaders (although they probably see the civilian leaders as the primary offenders).

But also that 1) a precipitous pullout would be a disaster for both the US military and the Iraqis and 2) they've invested their blood in this place and they'd prefer to see a positive outcome from the sacrifice.

None of the folks I ever ran across in Iraq ever bought into the occupation as a reasonable means to secure a more stable oil source (which I personally think was the primary neocon dogma), arguing rightly that the cost was way too high and not going to work anyway.

I base this on my own experience there (which is way old now, since I left for good in Feb of 2004, before things got nearly as nasty), but also from listening both to leaders like Petreus (who has a huge influence over what his troops believe), and the blogs of soldiers who've been there more recently than I have.

[Postman]

16. What would you say qualifies as a precipitous withdrawal?

The occupation can't last forever. We can't afford it.

About the blood being shed and wanting a positive outcome, in other words - having sacrificed in vain......

that became a reality as soon as this country went to war based on known lies and the war criminals in the Bush Administration didn't have enough competence to tie their shoes.
More people should not have to die or become injured because others have died before them for a BS cause...

[uppityperson]

12. Many of them know that is what they are doing but they have a bigger thing going on also.

Protecting each other.

[MrModerate]

15. Damn straight! n/t

[mike_c]

3. agree 100 percent-- there is no honor in killing for corporate imperialism...

...and MIC profits. The U.S. military is not doing anything honorable or praise-worthy in Iraq-- just the opposite, they're doing irreparable harm to American principles and moral standing.

[lonestarnot]

4. So exonmobile and the cabal could steal their oil.

[mitchtv]

5. That's the one that gets me

when someone says they are defending America by occupying Iraq. I just can't buy into it.

[Stinky The Clown]

8. You're just a little off with your posit

The soldiers are doing what they're supposed to do ... follow the orders from their civilian leadership.

You got a bitch about them being there ..... ? Take it up with their boss. You know. The asshat that keeps calling himself '****-In-Chief"

I do not mean to sound as if I support them being there. I absolutely do not. I just don't blame for being there.

[DavidDvorkin]

10. They swear to defend the Constitution

That takes priority.

"Following orders" was rejected as an excuse when the Allies tried Germans after WWII.

[Postman]

17. I don't blame them for being there either.

But they also are not defending America.

[JohnyCanuck]

9. The troops might not know the real reason they are there, but the Iraqis have a pretty good idea.

....Iraqi poet and blogger Layla Anwar sums up the feelings of many of the war's victims in a recent post on her web site "An Arab Women's Blues":

"At the gates of Babylon the Great, you are still struggling, fighting away, chasing this or the other, detaining, bombing from above, filling up morgues, hospitals, graveyards and embassies and borders with quesesfor exit-visas.

Not one Iraqi wishes your presence. Not one Iraqi accepts your occupation.

Got news for you Motherfuckers, ....You have brought upon yourself the hate and the curse of all Iraqis, Arabs and the rest of the world...now face your agony."(Layla Anwar; "An Arab Women's Blues: Reflections in a sealed bottle")

If Bush hoping to change the mind of Anwar or the millions of other Iraqis who have lost loved ones in the war, he's wasting his time. The hearts and minds campaign is lost. The US will never be welcome in Iraq.

snip

The war in Iraq was lost before the first shot was fired. The conflict never had the support of the American people and Iraq never posed a threat to US national security. The whole rationale for the war was based on lies; it was a coup orchestrated by elites and the media to carry out a far-right agenda. Now the mission has failed, but no one wants to admit their mistakes by withdrawing; so the butchery continues unabated.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/14077

[seabeyond]

13. not defending America... never was. america never threatened. one of the many issues n.t

[Bonobo]

14. Who could argue with that? K&R.