Monday, September 3, 2007

What our troops are saying

Monday, September 25, 2006 10:58 PM
Low and behold a story with guts about what our troops are saying. Follow me here....the troops, not the officers which are most often held in check by the simple position of being an 'officer'. The troops are like the common people from which they come and will tell you like it is if they believe it needs to be said. The mainstream media gives us stories that are heavily filtered which we here our troops morale is high, the war may have problems but the optomistic outlook is good. My last blog story, I said that our troops need to be pulled out for legitimate and honorable reasons. In today's newspaper appeared another very good reason, an AP story by Antonio Castaneda, the headline read "Some U.S. troops question loyalty of Iraqi Troops'. The following sentences say it all, another reason why the news stories say the possibitlity of a civil war in Iraq is growing. "The plan was simple: Iraqi troos would block escape routes while U.S. soldiers searched for weapons house-by-house. But the Iraqi troops didn't show up on time. When they finally did appear, the Iraqi's ignored U.S. orders and let dozens of cars pass through checkpoints in eastern Baghdad - including an ambulance full of armed militiamen, American soldiers said in recent interviews. It wasn't an isolated incident, they added." There's much more to the story which is an AP story you can hopefully and should read dear reader. I know this is just the tip of the iceberg of what the troops are saying is becoming the Vietnam of the GenXer's. When troops are held in check by STUPID rules (don't cross the DMZ into North Vietnam to kill the enemy that kills you), don't engage any enemy fire coming from a mosque without orders from higher authority. So tell me, what's the difference between Vietnam and Iraq besides geographical location??? The 'war on terror' being said today in the news, is said by the left as a law enforcement war, and by the right, a military war when in truth, it's both. It will take joint coordination by both law enforcement and the military for the decade or the life of our democracy, to be fought by both entities acting together. Face it, FBI HRT is good, but they don't have the resources to reach inside a Middle Eastern country when the opportunity arises. Today's talk radio and cable news was full of interpetations of the Wallace-Clinton interview, and an interesting arguement about Richard Clarke has risen. That Richard Clarke has been the end-all of terrorist experts and know's how to get them. If that was the case....OBL would be either in U.S. prison or dead by U.S. hands. I never met Richard Clarke, haven't read his book, and to be honest, my opinions are soley based on what I've heard him say on TV and what is printed and said via the media. Now if our politicians really want to get OBL - do this: The President calls Richard Marcinko, tells DemoDick, Marcinko...get OBL, you have carte blanche authority and assets. I've read R.M.'s books, met and had a good informal one on one chat with him at an airport, no one else around. This is what formed my opinion about the Rogue Warrior and why my belief is that RM is the best option to get OBL and break the back of the Islamo fascist. I think Richard Clarke is a good politician, but Marcinko is a warrior and that's what it will take to get a terrorist, guns - not words.

No comments: