Speaking to reporters on a conference call from Albuquerque, Mr. Domenici said his change of heart came after conversations with the families of New Mexico soldiers killed in Iraq who asked him to do more to save those still serving there.
“I heard nothing like that a couple of years ago,” he said. “I think that’s the result of this war dragging on almost indefinitely.”
Mr. Domenici said he would push for legislation that essentially enacted the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which called for military operations to be shifted more to counterterrorism, training of Iraqi forces and protection of American personnel and facilities. The goal would be to allow most combat troops to be withdrawn by March.
What? Military families wanting to save the lives of their loved ones and comrades in arms? Inconceivable. I gathered, by reading posts here, that the soldiers and their families want, more than anything else, to complete their mission. Maybe the Senator misunderstood, and the families meant “win the war” so as to save their lives.
I’m so confused.
I hope he doesn’t mean to move our troops to Okinawa.
(by the way, the “mission” is whatever their leaders determine it to be at any given point in time)
Speaking to reporters on a conference call…Mr. Domenici said his change of heart came after conversations with the families…And I’m up for reelection soon.
Speaking to reporters on a conference call…Mr. Domenici said his change of heart came after conversations with the families…And I’m up for reelection soon.
Doesn’t that mean doing what his constituents want him to do?
All soldiers think differently. They are not the robots the left wants to make them out to be. Ask any number fo veterans from any war about the war they fought in and you will get different views.
From what I have hear a lot of soldiers do want to complete the mission. That is their job. That is what they are trained to do.
From what I have hear a lot of soldiers do want to complete the mission. That is their job. That is what they are trained to do.
Try this again: their mission is whatever they are told it is, today. If today it is to take Fallujah in the next six months, and tomorrow it is to leave Iraq, then if they leave Iraq tomorrow they have accomplished their mission. Their mission tomorrow is not what they were told yesterday or today, it is what they are told it is tomorrow.
Come on man. I know you don’t like Bush and hate the war and I am in line with you but the mission after the fall of Saddam has always been to bring stability to Iraq and have a goverment fromed that can keep it peaceful and safe.
Are we doing that? No. Is it possible? Not with middle east’s 12th century thinking and inability to become a modern society. But something not happening is not saying there is no goal.
Everyday I become more anti-Bush and I still can’t find a group to agree with about it. Everyone wants to hate Bush and in their panic driven need to slam soooo hard they make stuff up and stop thinking.
Fine, split hairs. Their goal is to provide stability in Iraq. Their mission is handed to them on a short term bases to accomplish the end goal of a peaceful Iraq.
I don’t think anyone is making soldiers out as robots. There’s a diverse demographic of all sizes, shapes, and political ideologies. The post was directed at another thread in which a couple folks painted with a broad brush based on anecdotal evidence…
I can’t believe I’m about to say this… but mojozenmaster was correct in his assessment that the way to have “won” this war was with overwhelming force from day one. It’s a primary tenet which has been passed down through all of military history. It’s one of the primary philosophies of “The Art of War”. For God’s sake, the Romans would build walls around enemy cities and siege them for over a year to starve the enemy out! How does one do this? With 900x the number of troops you actually need. General Shinseki was right when he went in front of Congress and said he wants hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground to “secure” the country.
'cept that it wouldn’t have worked in Iraq. Anyone who thinks that such an operation would change the minds of the various factions in Iraq and get them to agree to a single, unified nation in our lifetime is smoking crack. We’d have to “hold” for many decades, and even then, when we left, there’d be the civil war we now see.
Well, lets take a look to see if they should have been worried.
Demenici got 65% of the vote in 2002.
2000 elections?
Santorum: 52% - and he had other issues come up
DeWine: 59% - caught up in Ohio backlash
Chafee: 56% - didn’t the Republicans abandon him the way Dems abandoned Lieberman?
Talent: 50% in special 2002 election - over an appointed, not elected Senator to fill out the remainder of a term
Burns: 50.55% - I sure hope he would be nervous
Allen: 52% - and barely lost in a squeaker
As far as I can tell, only DeWine came close to being in Domenici’s place. The rest should have been nervous about re-election any time.
There seems to be a whole raft of pretty influential, and mostly electorally safe Republicans abandoning the Bush warship. I guess the main question should be “who is left” and “why”?
My initial post was in jest (partially). The point being, these are tough times to be republican and up for re-election. The republican Rep. from my district (a 5 time incumbent) won 60% of the vote in 04. Last Nov. she became a stay at home mom.
Actually, that gave me an opportunity to learn some stuff I hadn’t known. It seemed like such a Dem. landslide in 2006, but each of those candidates was already on the borderline.
"My point is, there is no mission. The mission is unclear, poorly managed, and changes on a much too short timeline to ensure any success, let alone something as nebulous as “victory.” "
You just contradicted your self. There is a mission just a poor one. Words mean things and changing meanings just to score points is counter productive. There is huge problem in Iraq and any solution is going to be hard. The big problem I see is no one is being honest about it on either side. The troops and the Iraqis are pawns in a Democrat vs. Republican chess and both parties are fine with the blood spilled as long as they can use it to get votes.
My two options:
Pull out and never go back. No matter what hell it causes if we pull out we are out for good.
Form a draft. Ramp up spending and secure all of Iraq’s borders with a massive display of force that includes attacks into countries that are trying to influnce what is happening in Iraq. Lock the entire country down and form a goverment of our choosing. Once that goverment is in place we leave.
We are dealing with stupidity over there and we can’t beat that. Like I have said a million times it’s a part of the world trapped in the dark ages and have no desire to behave like rational people.
We are dealing with stupidity over there and we can’t beat that. Like I have said a million times it’s a part of the world trapped in the dark ages and have no desire to behave like rational people.
There’s much stupidity and irrationality in the Bush Admin as well - which trumps any stupidity found ‘over there’ - since the Bush Admin started this nightmare.
This started before Bush and your statement further proves my point that this is all politics and no one wants a solution. My statement about the middle east is true and the proof is in the putting. It has been a mess for thousands of years and the tribal lifestyle and insane use of god are the two things that are keeping them down.