I wonder: Would the pro-warriors who are so ready to stone you be just as willing to stone the men and women of our armed forces who agree with you? In a sense, they already are, by insisting on prolonging America's dangerous position in the middle of the Iraqi crossfire.

As a person who has family members that have (and continue to serve) on active duty in the US military, I find the marshaling of pro-war sentiment behind the "support our troops" facade repugnant and dishonest. By serving in our armed forces, these people have entered into a contract of trust, that they are willing to fight and die for their country, and that our government in turn must not throw their lives away needlessl...

I wonder: Would the pro-warriors who are so ready to stone you be just as willing to stone the men and women of our armed forces who agree with you? In a sense, they already are, by insisting on prolonging America's dangerous position in the middle of the Iraqi crossfire.

As a person who has family members that have (and continue to serve) on active duty in the US military, I find the marshaling of pro-war sentiment behind the "support our troops" facade repugnant and dishonest. By serving in our armed forces, these people have entered into a contract of trust, that they are willing to fight and die for their country, and that our government in turn must not throw their lives away needlessly.

The betrayal of that trust is the tragedy of my generation. Someone noble enough to sacrifice for their country should never be forced to choose between their uniform and what they know in their heart. The military did not ask for this war, and very few people in the military establishment thought that the plan for war was feasible, even before it began. These troops who oppose the war serve, against their own better judgment, out of their love of their country. It is far more noble than the policy makers who fail to do their due diligence in protecting the troops with sound intelligence and strategy.

By serving in our armed forces, these people have entered into a contract of trust, that they are willing to fight and die for their country, and that our government in turn must not throw their lives away needlessly.

They did not enter into ANY contract of 'trust'. What they took was an OATH of service. That oath states that they "protect the United States of America against all enemies foreign or domestic." It is not open to negotiation or union strikes. They knew this when they willingly raised their hands as did I years ago.

Someone noble enough to sacrifice for their country should never be forced to choose between their uniform and what they know in their ...

read more»

By serving in our armed forces, these people have entered into a contract of trust, that they are willing to fight and die for their country, and that our government in turn must not throw their lives away needlessly.

They did not enter into ANY contract of 'trust'. What they took was an OATH of service. That oath states that they "protect the United States of America against all enemies foreign or domestic." It is not open to negotiation or union strikes. They knew this when they willingly raised their hands as did I years ago.

Someone noble enough to sacrifice for their country should never be forced to choose between their uniform and what they know in their heart.

The brave men who charged Omaha Beach thought the same things. Many of them knew they were going to die and they did. They questioned whether this war was 'right' or justified or even sane. Yet they did what they had to do, THEY were soldiers. No soldier wants to go to war, yet that IS their job.

These troops who oppose the war serve, against their own better judgment, out of their love of their country.

Some, such as Pat Tillman, surely did die for their country. Regardless of how he was killed, he is still a real hero. To others, it's just a job, but one that can get them killed.
The problem is when politicians try to interfere with the job of the military. The politicians 'job' is to avoid war through diplomacy and treaties. When that fails is when the military has to be used. The military's job is to 'make the other guy die for HIS country'. When the politicians or people back home start meddling with the affairs of the military is when their OWN people die the most. They have a horrible job to do and EVERYONE knows it. Let them do their job.

On a personal note, I do not serve in the armed forces, because as a Buddhist, I feel it is my solemn religious obligation to not take human life, no matter how justified it may be. However, that is not to say that I do not wish to serve my country, on the other, equally important side of the equation: in the diplomatic corps, working to prevent wars, as you yourself observed.

However, I do not believe that the current administration did do all that it could to avert needless war, and I don't believe they desire my services in brokering piece. I would not allow my hard work and personal convictions to be abused as simply a cursory justification to a war that was preordained. I will serve my...

On a personal note, I do not serve in the armed forces, because as a Buddhist, I feel it is my solemn religious obligation to not take human life, no matter how justified it may be. However, that is not to say that I do not wish to serve my country, on the other, equally important side of the equation: in the diplomatic corps, working to prevent wars, as you yourself observed.

However, I do not believe that the current administration did do all that it could to avert needless war, and I don't believe they desire my services in brokering piece. I would not allow my hard work and personal convictions to be abused as simply a cursory justification to a war that was preordained. I will serve my country some day, under a President who serves it as well.

From what I have seen, I do not believe that President Bush serves any of us. Even you who support him.

At the risk of derailing what is a worthwhile debate, I would ask this: what, exactly, are we making progress towards?

From my perspective on Islam and conflict in the Middle East, right now we are simply standing in the middle and catching bullets from both sides. There is no outcome in Iraq in the forsesable future that benefits us, or the Iraqis. If you can provide one, then I would find it a great comfort, but try as I might, I can't think of a credible one.

But returning to the issue at hand, I would be interested in hearing the source for your numbers (95-5) because they seem highly anecdotal to me.

No matter what their numbers, I am touched by the human tragedy of the soldiers who ...

At the risk of derailing what is a worthwhile debate, I would ask this: what, exactly, are we making progress towards?

From my perspective on Islam and conflict in the Middle East, right now we are simply standing in the middle and catching bullets from both sides. There is no outcome in Iraq in the forsesable future that benefits us, or the Iraqis. If you can provide one, then I would find it a great comfort, but try as I might, I can't think of a credible one.

But returning to the issue at hand, I would be interested in hearing the source for your numbers (95-5) because they seem highly anecdotal to me.

No matter what their numbers, I am touched by the human tragedy of the soldiers who despair of winning the war, are skeptical of its purpose, yet serve on with a nobility all too rare in modern society.

I have also never dismissed the opinions of soldiers who believe they are doing good. Even though I may disagree with their assessment of the situation, I believe that they too have noble hearts and pure intentions. I do not believe that the US armed forces and those who serve in them are oppressors, or seek to harm the Iraqi people. I simply believe that the politicians who control them have corrupted their own mission with short-sightedness, greed, and a suborn unwillingness to address and correct mistakes when they are made.

I should also add that I am not one of the liberals who proposes to cut the funding to the war. I think this is vacuous (and equally diabolical) politicking by people who have nothing to gain or lose in this situation. I believe that the only solution to the war in Iraq is deescalation through diplomacy and engagement with the people in all sectors of the Iraqi population, not just the sycophants who flatter our agenda, yet undermine it at the same time.

There is no outcome in Iraq in the forsesable future that benefits us, or the Iraqis. If you can provide one, then I would find it a great comfort, but try as I might, I can't think of a credible one.

Allow me.

Iraq, as we all know, has had a very turbulent (and violent) history. After the the U.S chased Iraq back to Baghdad from Kuwait, Saddam knew he was vulnernable and not the mighty ruler he touted he was. Alot of other rulers in THAT region noticed this as well. They all knew Saddams days were numbered. MANY countries and states had interests in Iraq. Iran right next door had previous war experiences against them, the soviets supplied much of Sadda...

There is no outcome in Iraq in the forsesable future that benefits us, or the Iraqis. If you can provide one, then I would find it a great comfort, but try as I might, I can't think of a credible one.

Allow me.

Iraq, as we all know, has had a very turbulent (and violent) history. After the the U.S chased Iraq back to Baghdad from Kuwait, Saddam knew he was vulnernable and not the mighty ruler he touted he was. Alot of other rulers in THAT region noticed this as well. They all knew Saddams days were numbered. MANY countries and states had interests in Iraq. Iran right next door had previous war experiences against them, the soviets supplied much of Saddams weapons. The U.S., France, Russia, Germany and and many others ALL had oil interests in the country through their oil companies there.

Iran wanted Iraq years ago to annex and include their brand of secular and politcal ideas with the people. Oh, and the oil was good to have too.

Now that ALL the wolves have been circling, enter radical Islamists. They don't care WHO they kill, they justify anything they want to in the name of their 'god'. This has resulted in scores of innocent Iraqi men women and children being slaughtered. The Iraqi people now free from Saddam have long had quarrels with each other. They may just be waking up to realize that radical islam is more dangerous to them than anyone else. If the ONLY good thing that comes of this war is that and that alone, I will be not be happy, but staisfied that something good was acheived.

You history is essentially sound, and I would agree with you that there are certain areas of painful ideological progress to be made. I truly hope that it is the case.

But, I don't believe that the current US strategy in Iraq is helping that progress. In fact it may hinder it. As long as there are US soldiers in the streets, manipulators and agitators will identify them to the Iraqi people as the enemy, because it is always easier to villainize foreigners, especially when they are an army in your homeland. As long as they do this, it will prevent them from seeing that the true enemy lies among themselves, in the militants preaching bloodshed.

In the defense of Bush (and listen up, because...

You history is essentially sound, and I would agree with you that there are certain areas of painful ideological progress to be made. I truly hope that it is the case.

But, I don't believe that the current US strategy in Iraq is helping that progress. In fact it may hinder it. As long as there are US soldiers in the streets, manipulators and agitators will identify them to the Iraqi people as the enemy, because it is always easier to villainize foreigners, especially when they are an army in your homeland. As long as they do this, it will prevent them from seeing that the true enemy lies among themselves, in the militants preaching bloodshed.

In the defense of Bush (and listen up, because I don't do this often) he has never, to my knowledge, glorified or extolled the violence in Iraq the way that many others have on both sides.

You might see some of the good news from Iraq, but it doesn't get much play in the media, and unfortunately it doesn't get many pops here at Clipmarks either. Insurgent violence is down in Iraq. Many of the insurgents (Sunni and Shitte) have reached somewhat shaky truce with us and have turned against the terrorists because of their indiscriminate methods of killing. And there are many who before wanted nothing to do with the government who are now taking part.

The thing is, this is all still very shaky. It could fall apart and we might not be able to stop it. But if we withdraw it will almost certainly fall apart. There is no military solution in Iraq. But the military is needed to keep as...

You might see some of the good news from Iraq, but it doesn't get much play in the media, and unfortunately it doesn't get many pops here at Clipmarks either. Insurgent violence is down in Iraq. Many of the insurgents (Sunni and Shitte) have reached somewhat shaky truce with us and have turned against the terrorists because of their indiscriminate methods of killing. And there are many who before wanted nothing to do with the government who are now taking part.

The thing is, this is all still very shaky. It could fall apart and we might not be able to stop it. But if we withdraw it will almost certainly fall apart. There is no military solution in Iraq. But the military is needed to keep as much peace as possible in order for the political solution to stand a chance of working. And pulling out right now when real progress is being made is nothing more than grasping defeat from the jaws of victory.

Although I may not be as optimistic as you, I think you may be surprised to find we agree:

There is no military solution to Iraq. But if we withdraw it will almost certainly fall apart.

Even partition, which may have at one point been our best option, is not a realistic possibility now, because to do that we would essentially have to dismantle the very government that we have gone to such lengths to create.

If we pull out of Iraq, then not only will the country disintegrate into even more horrific violence, but it will undermine our credibility in the world even more than it already has been. It will simply prove correct all the things that America's critics have been saying. For the sake...

Although I may not be as optimistic as you, I think you may be surprised to find we agree:

There is no military solution to Iraq. But if we withdraw it will almost certainly fall apart.

Even partition, which may have at one point been our best option, is not a realistic possibility now, because to do that we would essentially have to dismantle the very government that we have gone to such lengths to create.

If we pull out of Iraq, then not only will the country disintegrate into even more horrific violence, but it will undermine our credibility in the world even more than it already has been. It will simply prove correct all the things that America's critics have been saying. For the sake of everyone, we have to finish what we started.

But that is why I believe it is so important to acknowledge that we are losing, our strategy is not one of success, and we are sorely in need of a new direction. I don't believe that the policy makers in the current administration know enough about the situation and about Islam to make those decisions, but I'll cover that in a separate comment.

I personally would love to hear more good news from Iraq. But I loathe propaganda, and often "good news" is manufactured to rally morale. Sadly, people rarely lie about bad news, although I will grant you that it does make for more sensationalist filler in the mind numbing 24 hour news cycle. I'll belive good news when it's not too convenient, and it seems credible.

As to the idea that we are making progress, perhaps we should clarify some terms. Currently we are involved in a Sunni - Shi'i civil war that has been in full force since the Prophet Mohammed's (PBH) grandson, Hussayin ibn Ali, was assassinated in the Battle of Karbala (name sound familiar?) in 680.

Because of theological differences, their tactics differ considerably. Shi'i, who compose the majority in Iraq and Iran, but a minority elsewhere in the Middle East, tend to from militias, and operate in death squads who abduct and murder their opponents. The term Assassin comes from a description of the Nazaris, a Shi'i death squad founded in 1090 (give or take, since they're a secret order.)
...

As to the idea that we are making progress, perhaps we should clarify some terms. Currently we are involved in a Sunni - Shi'i civil war that has been in full force since the Prophet Mohammed's (PBH) grandson, Hussayin ibn Ali, was assassinated in the Battle of Karbala (name sound familiar?) in 680.

Because of theological differences, their tactics differ considerably. Shi'i, who compose the majority in Iraq and Iran, but a minority elsewhere in the Middle East, tend to from militias, and operate in death squads who abduct and murder their opponents. The term Assassin comes from a description of the Nazaris, a Shi'i death squad founded in 1090 (give or take, since they're a secret order.)

Sunni, on the other hand, since the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the early 20th Century, have adopted the strategy of suicide attacks. These are only sanctioned by certain Sunni clerics in certain schools of Sunni jurisprudence, although they have essentially broken with their predecessors in favor of a "fundamentalist" or "charismatic" interpretation of the Qur'an.

Although a Shi'i Imam could sanction suicide attacks, to the best of my knowledge none have in Iraq, and they often preach fiery sermons about how Sunni's who commit suicide will go to hell. Thus, it is not in their interest to adopt the same tactics. Hezbollah, the only Shi'i militia that I know of to have used suicide attacks renounced them in 1999.

As a result, when most Americans say "Terrorist" they are referring to Sunni suicide bombers. (Al Qaeda) When they refer to "Militias," they normally are referring to Shi'i groups. (The Mahdi Army) However, these terms are used in such a casual way, that often they are confused. For my purposes, I will try to avoid using these terms altogether and refer specifically to their factions, but when I do presume that I follow these lines.

So if suicide bombers are mostly Sunni while the militias are mostly Shi'i, then who are the insurgents? The insurgents form three groups, as I see it:

First, the Bathists and Saddam-ists (normally more secular) who have not really been active since the early stages of the war. Second Iraqi nationalists, both Sunni and Shi'i, who view Americans as an invading army and attack our soldiers. Third, there are members of the religious conflict who view us as inhibiting their war against the other, and thus attack our soldiers for standing in the way.

However, as you have accurately observed, the violence by Iraqis against Americans has been overwhelmed by the Civil War in Iraq. But we aren't ...

So if suicide bombers are mostly Sunni while the militias are mostly Shi'i, then who are the insurgents? The insurgents form three groups, as I see it:

First, the Bathists and Saddam-ists (normally more secular) who have not really been active since the early stages of the war. Second Iraqi nationalists, both Sunni and Shi'i, who view Americans as an invading army and attack our soldiers. Third, there are members of the religious conflict who view us as inhibiting their war against the other, and thus attack our soldiers for standing in the way.

However, as you have accurately observed, the violence by Iraqis against Americans has been overwhelmed by the Civil War in Iraq. But we aren't fighting terrorists, because they are not really fighting us, we just get in their way. And so it has been since 1992, when Saudi Arabia allowed what was seen as a Christian army within the Dar al Islam to defend against the Iraqis instead of the Muslim army of Al Qaeda and other former mujahedeen. (This is viewed by many as a grave transgression by the Saudis as they are stewards of the Muslim holy lands. It was also the principle stated reason for Al Qaeda's attacks on America.)

So why do I, and some of our troops, feel like we are losing the war, and that optimistic reports are naive propaganda? Because we are in a lose-lose situation. Even if we introduced true democracy (not the controlled version we're toying with right now) to Iraq, the will of the Iraqi majority (by a 2-1 margin) would be to elect a Shi'i government, probably radical, that would immediately align itself with Iran and against the US, probably with socialist tendencies, which would nationalize the oil industry and void all contracts with American corporations within Iraq, then wage a war of annihilation against the Sunnis within its boarders, then beyond. (And I have a hundred dollar bet going to this effect.)

What is the place for America and a troop surge in this struggle? It has been fought in the same cities for over 1300 years. I want us to achieve something great for humanity, but after a thousand years of failure by anyone to resolve this conflict, maybe we shouldn't be too proud to try a different strategy from merely "overwhelming" military force.

Basically, I believe I know more about his conflict than the politicians in Washington D.C., and I don't believe they have the will, the interest, the skills or the knowledge to negotiate a victory. On the other hand, some Democrats who might be able to include Richard Holbrooke, Bill Richardson, or even your favorites, Bill Clinton or Jimmy Ca...

What is the place for America and a troop surge in this struggle? It has been fought in the same cities for over 1300 years. I want us to achieve something great for humanity, but after a thousand years of failure by anyone to resolve this conflict, maybe we shouldn't be too proud to try a different strategy from merely "overwhelming" military force.

Basically, I believe I know more about his conflict than the politicians in Washington D.C., and I don't believe they have the will, the interest, the skills or the knowledge to negotiate a victory. On the other hand, some Democrats who might be able to include Richard Holbrooke, Bill Richardson, or even your favorites, Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter. In that order. And one of those people is even running for President!