that it's a political question that is unreviewable by any court.
Ask the producers. I'm sure they know.
-- Modified on 11/12/2005 1:08:40 PM
I was watching a Tivo of Boston Legal lastnight. The dialog was in a court of law, and the protagonist, an attorney, was talking about the "war". He said , "We have 140,000 troops in Iraq, and they say we need more. Why aren't we sending them?"
Would someone more in tune with the specifics of strategic military troop deployment please explain why, if there is agreement on BOTH sides of the aisle, why isn't it being done?
Just spare me the rhetorical canard of bleeding heart liberalism, or cold-hearted conservativism. I want a real explanation. Please. Thank you. Anyone?
Until Jack-In-The-Crack weighs in on this one [he's had extensive military experience] the simple explanation is that there ain't enough to go around. No amount of scrounging in the Reserves and the National Guard is going to make up the shortfall - General Shineski [spelling?] in 2002 or early 2003 stated that 300,000 troops would be needed at a minimum to occupy a conquered Iraq. Rumsfeld and Cheney insisted that the job cold be done with half, the 150,00 or so currently there. The offending general was soon history.
No real alternative to a radical expansion of the US army - and that's going to take several years at best, be problematic in terms of lowered recruiting standards?, cost a boatload of additional $$$$$$, face political opposition from the get-go, and all other types of problems I can't forsee as I compose this.
Can't redeploy forces from other US commitments worldwide, for obvious reasons.
And finally, here's a "history repeats itself" point? - the point at which LBJ threw in the towel on Vietnam was in Feb and March 1968, soon after the Tet Offensive, when as part of a routine review of military manpower requirements, Gen Westmoreland informed LBJ that appx 50,000 additional men would have to be deployed to Nam. If Bush and the NeoCons and the plain old Cons have to bite the bullet and request an additional and massive deployment of personnel to Iraq, might that not be the point where they decisively lose the domestic political struggle over this war [and they ain't doing all that hot as is as I type this]?
Answer your question somewhat?
Even primetime fiction is sandbagging the President and the war.
Democrats are sandbagging the President and the war.
You have convinced kids today the President is a stupid liar and the mission is Iraq is a farce.
And you wonder why we can't fill the ranks?
Congradulations.....
The military is ALWAYS less popular when they have to go to work. The Mexican war and War of 1812 weren't wonderfully popular. The Civil War was unpopular in many quarters of the North.
This war is different in that much older farts can participate, if they can get into the reserve. Somehow I don't see people lined up. I don't qualify for the reserve, having let that option lapse a long time ago, and even if they took me, they'd probably put me in charge of some damn logistical operation so some young stud could go get trigger time. And I'd be one hell of a lot more valuable staying home and teaching my pre-teen kids that war is not as glamorous as TV & Hollywood makes it look; that it is to be avoided whenever possible, and when it can't be, it should be ended as soon as possible.
So, are you eligible for the reserve? What about your kids, have they signed up?
The President *IS* a stupid liar. You can't listen to him for 5 minutes and think his brain is in gear, and that's a good working definition of stupid. And he's a liar in that he denied having been arrested despite a DUI conviction. We just aren't sure what else he's lied about. Personally, I doubt that he knows enough about the war to qualify as a liar - I think that's more up to other, smarter people.
But what's really stupid is blaming the media for failing to hype a war and act as the Army's recruiters, even assuming that would work. What sort of amazing propaganda machine would that take?
And that is one of the geniuses of American culture, that not only is power divided among the 3 Federal branches and the states, it's also divided among the various economic entities ranging from the Fortune 500 to the local plumber.
And the media has a responsibility to its owners, itself and it's customers; it has NO responsibility to hype any war or political campaign.
That sort of decentralized power is called democracy, and it's designed into our constitution. Have some respect for it, even if you disagree.
-- Modified on 11/12/2005 9:59:49 PM
dumbest post of the day.
Did you have to pull your pants down to get that thought out?
it is pointless to point out in detail your cluelessness. It is better to just flag these posts as I have done so that others who may stumble across your assortment of belches and grumbles that barely resemble thought get the sense that the other posters on this board do not suffer from the same blind delusions.
Are *you* eligible? How many of your kids have you signed up?
Has it occurred to you that just maybe the kids might figure out all by themselves, that a President who speaks non-standard English and brags about being a C student, just *might* be stupid?
It's a fictional TV show for God's sakes!!!
because a question like that would NEVER come up in ANY courtroom.
I dunno Boston Legal from squat, never having watched it. Looking at their site, I notice they can't even spell "litigation", or "adversary". If their protagonist Crane is 6043 & 0, it's only because he's doing assembly line defaults of bounced checks. IMHO, that ain't lawyering.
-- Modified on 11/13/2005 11:46:49 AM
test
-- Modified on 1/31/2009 10:41:33 AM
that it's a political question that is unreviewable by any court.
Ask the producers. I'm sure they know.
-- Modified on 11/12/2005 1:08:40 PM
know that "political question" is a legal doctrine limiting judicial review; or for that matter that Federal questions don't come up in state court. (OK, there is such a thing as pendent jurisdiction).
Few TV producers know this, and they are absolutely right in betting that even fewer viewers know.
-- Modified on 11/12/2005 3:42:48 PM
It would look bad, descredit the neo-con position, Rush Limbaugh would be embarrassed, the public would start thinking thoughts, give the wrong impression, Rumsfeld would look uninformed, the Washington Times would have to burble a new party line, Condi "are you impugning my integrity ?" Rice would have
a rougher grilling next time, the spectre of the draft would be raised, the press corps would get antsy, Scientology wouldn't have the answer, Bob Dylan might revive his career, homos might join the military, lesbos would be making out in foxholes, kids would get cynical, Fox news would get all sincere and earnest, we'd have to come up with all the armor and IED proof vehicles that we're lacking anyway, shit happens, more shit might happen, liberals might gloat, we might need to invade Liberia or Surinam or Belize or Albania, our moron Commander In Chief
would have to return and serve another round of turkey with all the fixins for a morale boosting photo op before his popularity rating becomes the square root of negative fifty, we might find ourselves with a mercenary army of furiners who want a quick ticket to American citizenship, we might have to lower our standards and enlist criminals, Defense Language School is only turning out a trickle of Arabic language specialists and no matter how many troops we have, almost none can read or understand Arabic,
a la Viet nam, the troops we do have over there are coming back and exhibitng symptoms of severe post traumatic stress disorder, such as high risk seeking behaviors, this is a problematic thing for nice stable American middle class society, we'd have to train a load of nice, simple high school kids for the rigors of life in adverse environments, their parents might complain and send them hasish brownies to help them cope, H. Rap Brown might return from the grave and threaten to burn down Washington DC... again, 40 years later... we'd feel self conscious as a nation and overeat unhealthy fast foods to calm our nerves, we need the extras to create more realism in phony World War II "good war" movies so we can draw specious parallels between then and now....
There are practical,political & military reasons.*practical/political*: where to find 150,000 warm bodies and can they be trained, armed and deployed in time to make a significant difference before the '06 elections;even if Rumsfeld wants to deploy would dubya and the RNC go along? Besides,the current defense budget contains so many "untouchable" weapons programs so where would the additional funds come from?. Politically, Condi's call to the Sunni's to participate in the coming elections shows that the administration recognizes the insurgency is primarily driven by the Sunnis with an "assist" from foreigners.But how do you fight a hit-and-run war,basically a guerilla war? To win you need good intelligence that can come only from a friendly populace and you have to fight them at their own game, which entails higher casualties.I believe(hope) pentagon planners are aware of the pitfalls.
They are, but they're until the questionable control of the civilian NeoCons and ChickenHawks within DoD, so their ability to challenge and question civilian leadership publicly [is there such a word as "failureship"?] is limited] to news leaks and questioning before Congress. And since the Repubs control both Houses, and hence all committees relevant to this issue...
And ther's a broader question re whether you want to weaken the tradition of civilian control of the military over this issue which, terrible as it is, will one day pass.
What would get everyone's attention I think is a mass resignation of two-three-and-four star generals from the army and the marines, made publicly and clearly on the basis of opposition to the total wrongness and futility of this policy.
RVN, and are very conscious of your question, "how do you fight a hit-and-run war,basically a guerilla war?"
That doesn't mean they have a wonderful answer, or that the Cabinet & Pres will listen to them. Of course the military is institutionally optimistic, and that is critical in the field, but it's not always so smart on a staff, especially a political staff.
A very good reason that people who aren't sure where they were for reserve drills shouldn't be making those decisions.
remember Vietnam, but most congressmen are - even if most of them were a bit young or managed not to participate, they're still very conscious of it.
That is the backdrop here, whether we have gotten ourselves into another Vietnam, or not. IMHO, there are a hell of a lot of similarities, and significant dissimilarities. Obviously, we have the ability to blow up anything we want. It's much harder to use that to change a nation's politics.
And of course the subtext is the struggle to control the government of the only real superpower in the world.
My suspicion is that decisions regarding Iraq aren't determined so much by any intelligent long term (5+ years) plan, as by the twists and turns of domestic politics. THAT is what screws the troops - leadership not knowing what the hell it's doing - not some voter asking what the hell is going on. Troops are - and should be - one hell of a lot more concerned that the people up the chain of command know what they hell they are doing, and not so much what the people in their hometown think.
So it's like trying to collect on an unwise loan that's turned into a bad debt - should we invest more to collect, or should we cut our losses?
sending empty messages because you're shaking, or forgetting??
[[GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG]]