On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 22:01:26 GMT, (-) wrote:


http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed116.html


Addendum to Clausewitz
by Fred Reed


DIGG THIS


It's all but official: The war in Iraq is lost. Report after leaked
report says so. Everybody in Washington knows it except that
draft-dodging ferret in the White House. Politicians scurry to avoid
the blame. One day soon people will ask aloud: How did we let 3000 GIs
die for the weak ego of a pampered liar and his desperate need to
prove he's half the man his father was?

The troops from now on will die for a war that they already know is
over. They are dying for politicians. They are dying for nothing. By
now they must know it. It happened to us, too, long ago.

The talk among pols now is about finding an "exit strategy." This
means a way of pulling out without risking too many seats in Congress.
Screw the troops. We must look to the elections. Do we really want an
exit strategy? A friend of mine, with two tours in heavy combat in
another war, has devised a splendid exit strategy. It consists of five
words: "OK. On the plane. Now." Bring your toothbrush. Everything else
stays. We're outa here.

It is a workable exit strategy, one with teeth, and comprehensible to
all. But we won't use it. We will continue killing our men,
calculatedly, cynically, for the benefit of politicians. The important
thing, you see, is the place in history of Bush Puppy. Screw the troops.

Face it. The soldiers are being used. They are being suckered. This
isn't new. It happened to my generation. Long after we knew that the
war in Vietnam was lost, Lyndon Johnson kept it going to fertilize his
vanity, and then Nixon spoke of the need to "save face"-at two hundred
dead GIs a week. But of course Johnson and Nixon weren't among the
dead, or among the GIs.

I saw an interview on television long ago in which the reporter asked
an infantryman near Danang, I think, what he thought of Nixon's plan
to save face. "His face, our ass," was the reply. Just so, then, and
just so now. Screw the troops. What the hell, they breed fast in
Kansas anyway.

Soldiers are succinct and do not mince words. This makes them
dangerous. We must keep them off-camera to the extent possible. A GI
telling the truth could set recruiting back by years.

The truth is that the government doesn't care about its soldiers, and
never has. If you think I am being unduly harsh, read the Washington
Post. You will find story after story saying that the Democrats don't
want to do anything drastic about the war. They fear seeming "soft on
national security." In other words, they care more about their
electoral prospects in 2008 than they do about the lives of GIs. It's
no secret. For them it is a matter of tuning the spin, of covering
tracks, of calculating the vector sum of the ardent-patriot vote which
may be cooling, deciding which way the liberal wind blows, and staying
poised to seem to have supported whoever wins. Screw the troops. Their
fathers probably work in factories anyway.

Soldiers do not realize, until too late, the contempt in which they
are held by their betters. Here is the psychological foundation of the
hobbyist wars of bus-station presidents. If you are, say, a Lance
Corporal in some miserable region of Iraq, I have a question for you:
Would your commanding general let you date his daughter? I spent my
high-school years on a naval base, Dahlgren Naval Proving Ground as it
was then called. Dahlgren was heavy with officers, scientists, and
engineers. Their daughters, my classmates, were not allowed to
associate with sailors. Oh yes, we honor our fighting men. We hold
them in endless respect. Yes we do.

For that matter, Lance Corporal, ask how many members of Congress have
even served, much less been in combat. Ask how many have children in
the armed services. Look around you. Do you see many (any) guys from
Harvard? Yale? MIT? Cornell? Exactly. The smart, the well-off, the
powerful are not about to risk their irreplaceable sit-parts in
combat. Nor are they going to mix with mere high-school graduates,
with kids from small towns in Tennessee, with blue-collar riffraff who
bowl and drink Bud at places with names like Lenny's Rib Room. One
simply doesn't. One has standards.

You are being suckered, gang, just as we were.

It is a science. The government hires slick PR firms and ad agencies
in New York. These study what things make a young stud want to be A
Soldier: a desire to prove himself, to get laid in foreign places, a
craving for adventure, a desire to feel part of something big and
powerful and respected, what have you. They know exactly what they are
doing. They craft phrases, "Be a Man Among Men," or "A Few Good Men,"
or, since girls don't like those two, "The Few, The Proud." Join up
and be Superman.

Then comes the calculated psychological conditioning. There is for
example the sense of power and unity that comes of running to cadence
with a platoon of other guys, thump, thump, thump, all shouting to the
heady rhythm of boots, "If I die on the Russian front, bury me with a
Russian c__t, Lef-rye-lef-rye-lef-rye-lef..." That was Parris Island,
August of '66, and doubtless they say something else now, but the
principle is the same.

And so you come out in splendid physical shape and feeling no end
manly and they tell you how noble it is to Fight for Your Country.
This might be true if anyone were invading the country. But since
Washington always invades somebody else, you are actually fighting for
Big Oil, or Israel, or the defense industry, or the sexual ambiguities
who staff National Review, or the vanity of that moral dwarf on
Pennsylvania Avenue. You will figure this out years later.

Once you are in the war, you can't get out. We couldn't either. While
your commander in chief eats steak in the White House and talks tough,
just like a real president, you kill people you have no reason to
kill, about whom you know next to nothing-which one day may weigh on
your conscience. It does with a lot of guys, but that comes later.

You are being suckered, and so are the social classes that supply the
military. Note that the Pentagon cracks down hard on troops who say
the wrong things online, that the White House won't allow coffins to
be photographed, that the networks never give soldiers a chance to
talk unedited about what is happening. Oh no. It is crucial to keep
morale up among the rubes. You are the rubes. So, once, were we.





December 18, 2006

Fred Reed is author of Nekkid in Austin: Drop Your Inner Child Down a Well
and the just-published A Brass Pole in Bangkok: A Thing I Aspire to Be.

2006 Fred Reed

And the political hacks in Washington DC refuse to seal our borders
against the flow of illegal aliens.

Max

Yeah the time to increase troop strength was 3 years ago....... not
today the war is lost, because the president is a moron........

murtha is right redeploy to permiter and let Iraquis decide their fate,
sercure the borders so the war doesnt spread....

instability breeds instability, bush hgas destabilized the entire area.

what we need is some BIG war protests spreading thruout the US, the
democrats in congress will see it as a sign to ramp down war funding,
which is the only way to end this war.

I expect some attacks on the iraq red and green zones, tpo rtry and
free saddam befoire he is executed. this is way past due.

killing saddam will trigger a all out civil war

subject changed from
"Everybody in Washington knows it except that draft-dodging
ferret in the White House."
to
OT: "Everybody in Washington knows it except that
draft-dodging ferret in the White House."

On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 06:18:04 -0700, wrote:
snip
It's all but official: The war in Iraq is lost. Report after leaked
report says so. Everybody in Washington knows it except that
draft-dodging ferret in the White House.
snip
========================
This sort of personal attack obscures any message you may be
attempting to send. A difference of perception does not make the
person evil, even if wrong.

Of greater concern is the creation of a new "Africa Command" by
the US Army followed almost at once by the active/overt
involvement of Ethiopia in the Somalia civil war. Given the
poverty of the region, it appears one of the "great" powers is
again financing a war. Does anyone know what large amounts of
"aid" or credits for food have been granted to Ethiopia in the
last few weeks?

This is how the Iran/Iraq war was started/maintained with
financing through the "Food for Peace" program. Google on
Atlanta "Banca Nazionale del Lavoro"
goto
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/NSIAD-91-76
http://demopedia.democraticundergrou...hp/Lavoro_Bank
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refere...rg&match=exact
among many others

It is suspected than many similar schemes were in operation, but
have not yet been uncovered.

It is wisely said that the only thing we learn from history is
that no one ever learns anything from history.

Where's the prime directive when we need it?

On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 21:18:53 -0500, Ed
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 09:46:47 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

[Godless Off Topic To Home Repair News Group Spam Removed]

Pedophiles, Child Molesters, Father Stabbers, Mother Rapers, Sexual
Molesters of Small Animals, Telemarketers (Teleterrorists), Spammers,
Junk Mailers and anyone that would associate with and/or work for one.

A L L T H E S A M E F I L T H Y T R A S H ..............


You seem to have left out Liberals for some reason.

Gunner



"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton

"draft dodging ferrit"

That president was impeached remember him.......B. Clinton
the one that caused 9/11 to happen in the 1st place.

get back under the bridge.

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
subject changed from
"Everybody in Washington knows it except that draft-dodging
ferret in the White House."

just me again wrote:
"draft dodging ferrit"

That president was impeached remember him.......B. Clinton
the one that caused 9/11 to happen in the 1st place.

get back under the bridge.

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
subject changed from
"Everybody in Washington knows it except that draft-dodging
ferret in the White House."


It is interesting how just about everyone that likes to bitch about
President Bush's service in the National Guard, had no problem at all
with President Clinton having avoided all service. In fact, Clinton
wrote a letter at the time to Senator Fullbright, saying that he
"loathed the military." Did Republicans ever bring it up and make it
an issue during his campaign against Clinton? How about Dole, who
lost the use of his arm in WWII? No, the issue of what type of
military service one had participated in never came up, until the
Democrats suddenly discovered John Kerry with his purple hearts, and
then, anything less was no longer honorable.

Oh, and did these folks have any issue when Jimmy Carter went ahead and
gave full amnesty to those that fled to Canada during the Vietnam war?

What a sad bunch of hypocrits.

Vietnam and Iraq so similiar

Trying to do too much with too little and ultimately losing......

wrote in message
oups.com...
Vietnam and Iraq so similiar


actually they are not similar at all
if you were there smart ass you would know that
I love how people who do not join the military are the ones complaining
about the war on terror (not iraq)
damn freedom moochers.
we should have let the little commy *******s win ,then you protesters would
have nothing to complain about because you would be dead already or sold to
a sex/slave guru.


Trying to do too much with too little

sounds like a personal problem

stubbier wrote: actually they are not similar at all

You give the military what they MUST have to WIN.

OVERWHELMING TROOP STRENGTH and power.

You DONT mosey on in afraid to scare the surrounding countries by
bringing in too many troops.

You overrun the objective and are responsible for security once you
overthrow the current government!

one thing for certain, we lost ietnam and have already lost Iraq.....

wrote in message
ups.com...

stubbier wrote: actually they are not similar at all

You give the military what they MUST have to WIN.

exactly, a united nation and congress would be nice



OVERWHELMING TROOP STRENGTH and power.

if we had more enlistments then we could send more troops
unfortunately they are already all over the world (not just in iraq)
protecting your ass



You DONT mosey on in afraid to scare the surrounding countries by
bringing in too many troops.


and then what, kill everyone we come in contact with
no wonder why you compare it to vietnam with that way of thinking


You overrun the objective and are responsible for security once you
overthrow the current government!

then what, kill everyone we come in contact with
their are innocent people there you know





one thing for certain, we lost ietnam and have already lost Iraq.....


Iraq was lost until they found US