Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
New York Post
March 25, 2008 How Pols Exploit Iraq Casualties
By Ralph Peters
LAST Saturday, as the number of American fighting men and women killed in Iraq approached 4,000, my wife and I crawled through traffic in the DC suburbs - in the safety, prosperity and congestion that our troops guarantee with their lives.
Up ahead by a traffic light, an unkempt figure held up a hand-lettered sign. But as we inched forward, I realized this was no homeless person.
The man was scrawny and middle-aged, with mad-scientist hair and a wispy beard that proclaimed he had no wife to discipline him - but his clothing was clean (if sloppy). He just looked like one of those guys who nurse their coffee far too long at Starbucks on the weekends.
His sign said: SUPPORT TROOPS BRING HOME. Stingy with definite articles and punctuation, the poor devil seemed as if his cause had been chosen at random, as if he would have been equally distraught over UFO "coverups."
As we passed him by, I would've bet my life that I could tell you three facts about him: He'd never served in our military and didn't know anyone in uniform; he had nothing better to do on that lovely afternoon - and he was a Barack Obama supporter.
Since that lonely activist sighting, our war dead in Iraq reached the 4,000 mark after five full years of war. Historically, and given the scope of the conflict, the figure's remarkably low. Yet, as a former soldier, I know it's a foul against the families to argue either that our casualties are limited or exorbitant. For those who lose a loved one, that single casualty might as well be a million.
Soldiers die in war. They always will. They know that when they sign up or re-enlist. Nonetheless, our nation's leaders have the responsibility to employ our troops as wisely as possible and never to squander their lives for political ends.
As we reached the 4,000th service-member killed in action, I found myself disgusted with both the Bush administration and its irresponsible, cynical opponents. The slogan, "Support Our Troops, Bring Them Home," may be the most dishonest that ever intruded on American politics - but the war's original sponsors haven't rushed their own kids to the recruiting office, either.
With all-too-rare exceptions, our politicians, right or left, really don't give a damn about our troops. Polls matter, grunts don't.
Oh, the pols spout all sorts of rhetoric about how much they honor those in uniform, but they really only value our troops as tools of partisan policies or for photo ops.
Between the incumbent president and his would-be replacements, only one has served in uniform or had a son or daughter serve in uniform. If military service is so praiseworthy, why don't more pols encourage their own kids to sign up? I'll tell you why: They regard our troops as second-raters who couldn't get into Harvard Law or a master's program at Yale.
It's the Leona Helmsley approach to policy: Our troops are the "little people."
Most pols don't even know any service members - except for a few grotesquely ambitious retired generals and admirals.
We've seen President Bush dressed up in a flight suit, grinning like Alfred E. Neuman among troops who desperately want to believe in their commander-in-chief. We've seen Sen. Hillary Clinton do drive-bys in Iraq - just long enough to make political statements, pose with the troops, then zip home.
For his part, Sen. Obama at least has the integrity to not even pretend he cares about the troops - he doesn't go anyplace more dangerous than a Chicago church pew. No recent aspirant for the Oval Office has known or cared so little about our military.
I'm just damned angry. The right won't admit any mistakes in Iraq, while the left seeks to undercut progress there.
Honorable, valiant and tenacious, our troops deserve better leaders. Never in our history have we seen so profound a contrast between those who serve and those who decide how they should be employed.
We also face, for the first time, national-level leaders who would rather lose a war than lose an election.
What actions in Washington would truly honor those 4,000 dead service members?
*From President Bush, a straightforward, no-excuses apology for his administration's arrogance and earlier mistakes in this war.
*From Sen. Clinton, a public denunciation of her Hollywood pals (who keep funding movies portraying our soldiers as atrocity-addicted psychotics) and a commitment to listen to our leading generals before making any decisions regarding troop withdrawals.
*From Sen. Obama, a two-week visit to dirty-boots Army and Marine units in Iraq (not the Green Zone and no photo ops) and a pledge to give a fair hearing to military advice before surrendering to al Qaeda in Iraq.
*From both parties in Congress, a return to the policy that, in wartime, politics stops at the water's edge.
Fat chance. We'll see Osama bin Laden become a Baptist first.
Four thousand dead service members in Iraq? Does any reader of this column believe that Bush, Clinton or Obama has lost a single hour of sleep thinking about those troops and their families?
I suspect that pathetic can't-get-a-date-so-I'll-protest-the-war guy on the street corner down here in the DC suburbs felt a more-genuine concern than any of the above.
Ralph Peters' latest book is "Wars of Blood and Faith."
March 25, 2008 How Pols Exploit Iraq Casualties
By Ralph Peters
LAST Saturday, as the number of American fighting men and women killed in Iraq approached 4,000, my wife and I crawled through traffic in the DC suburbs - in the safety, prosperity and congestion that our troops guarantee with their lives.
Up ahead by a traffic light, an unkempt figure held up a hand-lettered sign. But as we inched forward, I realized this was no homeless person.
The man was scrawny and middle-aged, with mad-scientist hair and a wispy beard that proclaimed he had no wife to discipline him - but his clothing was clean (if sloppy). He just looked like one of those guys who nurse their coffee far too long at Starbucks on the weekends.
His sign said: SUPPORT TROOPS BRING HOME. Stingy with definite articles and punctuation, the poor devil seemed as if his cause had been chosen at random, as if he would have been equally distraught over UFO "coverups."
As we passed him by, I would've bet my life that I could tell you three facts about him: He'd never served in our military and didn't know anyone in uniform; he had nothing better to do on that lovely afternoon - and he was a Barack Obama supporter.
Since that lonely activist sighting, our war dead in Iraq reached the 4,000 mark after five full years of war. Historically, and given the scope of the conflict, the figure's remarkably low. Yet, as a former soldier, I know it's a foul against the families to argue either that our casualties are limited or exorbitant. For those who lose a loved one, that single casualty might as well be a million.
Soldiers die in war. They always will. They know that when they sign up or re-enlist. Nonetheless, our nation's leaders have the responsibility to employ our troops as wisely as possible and never to squander their lives for political ends.
As we reached the 4,000th service-member killed in action, I found myself disgusted with both the Bush administration and its irresponsible, cynical opponents. The slogan, "Support Our Troops, Bring Them Home," may be the most dishonest that ever intruded on American politics - but the war's original sponsors haven't rushed their own kids to the recruiting office, either.
With all-too-rare exceptions, our politicians, right or left, really don't give a damn about our troops. Polls matter, grunts don't.
Oh, the pols spout all sorts of rhetoric about how much they honor those in uniform, but they really only value our troops as tools of partisan policies or for photo ops.
Between the incumbent president and his would-be replacements, only one has served in uniform or had a son or daughter serve in uniform. If military service is so praiseworthy, why don't more pols encourage their own kids to sign up? I'll tell you why: They regard our troops as second-raters who couldn't get into Harvard Law or a master's program at Yale.
It's the Leona Helmsley approach to policy: Our troops are the "little people."
Most pols don't even know any service members - except for a few grotesquely ambitious retired generals and admirals.
We've seen President Bush dressed up in a flight suit, grinning like Alfred E. Neuman among troops who desperately want to believe in their commander-in-chief. We've seen Sen. Hillary Clinton do drive-bys in Iraq - just long enough to make political statements, pose with the troops, then zip home.
For his part, Sen. Obama at least has the integrity to not even pretend he cares about the troops - he doesn't go anyplace more dangerous than a Chicago church pew. No recent aspirant for the Oval Office has known or cared so little about our military.
I'm just damned angry. The right won't admit any mistakes in Iraq, while the left seeks to undercut progress there.
Honorable, valiant and tenacious, our troops deserve better leaders. Never in our history have we seen so profound a contrast between those who serve and those who decide how they should be employed.
We also face, for the first time, national-level leaders who would rather lose a war than lose an election.
What actions in Washington would truly honor those 4,000 dead service members?
*From President Bush, a straightforward, no-excuses apology for his administration's arrogance and earlier mistakes in this war.
*From Sen. Clinton, a public denunciation of her Hollywood pals (who keep funding movies portraying our soldiers as atrocity-addicted psychotics) and a commitment to listen to our leading generals before making any decisions regarding troop withdrawals.
*From Sen. Obama, a two-week visit to dirty-boots Army and Marine units in Iraq (not the Green Zone and no photo ops) and a pledge to give a fair hearing to military advice before surrendering to al Qaeda in Iraq.
*From both parties in Congress, a return to the policy that, in wartime, politics stops at the water's edge.
Fat chance. We'll see Osama bin Laden become a Baptist first.
Four thousand dead service members in Iraq? Does any reader of this column believe that Bush, Clinton or Obama has lost a single hour of sleep thinking about those troops and their families?
I suspect that pathetic can't-get-a-date-so-I'll-protest-the-war guy on the street corner down here in the DC suburbs felt a more-genuine concern than any of the above.
Ralph Peters' latest book is "Wars of Blood and Faith."