The Emasculation Of The Military

Hillary has a plan for post election Iraq.  Her prediction is that troops will be in Iraq for awhile, but if she is elected, she won't ct and run, but she will more or less surrender.

“It would be far fewer troops,” she said. “But what we can do is to almost take a line sort of north of — between Baghdad and Kirkuk, and basically put our troops into that region, the ones that are going to remain for our antiterrorism mission, for our northern support mission, for our ability to respond to the Iranians, and to continue to provide support, if called for, for the Iraqis.”

Mrs. Clinton described a mission with serious constraints.

“We would not be doing patrols,” she added. “We would not be kicking in doors. We would not be trying to insert ourselves in the middle between the various Shiite and Sunni factions. I do not think that’s a smart or achievable mission for American forces.”

Imagine being a soldier and assigned to Iraq.  You are going to pull out of Baghdad to some point north of the city.  You will essentially be assigned to a camp and not allowed out.  It will be too dangerous because you can't shoot back.  You will be subject to rocket and mortar attacks with no authority to rapidly counterstrike and take out those who are attacking you. 

You are there for some vague mission concerning anti-terrorism, but with the constraints placed upon you by your Commanderette-in-Chief^TM, you may as well be standing around waiting for a mortar with your name on it...oh wait, you will be doing that.

You cannot run the military like this.  You cannot emasculate the US Military and expect results.  This comes from Mrs. Clinton's profound distrust misunderstanding and downright hatred of the Armed Forces and their role.

This is why the Hill-da-beast cannot be elected to be our Commanderette-in-Chief^TM.

VW

Comments

[BobF]

Can you imagine the mass exodus from the military if Hillary becomes president? I was active duty when Bill was elected and many senior NCO's and officers ended their careers early rather than serve under Clinton.

[canuckistani]

Hilary is advocating what sounds like the peacekeeping style of engagement Canadian troops carried out in the Balkan conflict of the early nineties. The Canadian troops did it but I don't think its something the U.S. army could do unless it changes. The present philosophy and style of the U.S. army is much different and not conducive to peacekeeping. The Canadians went into the Balkans and did the heavy lifting in the conflict early on. It was only after things had died down that President Clinton sent U.S. troops in. I think he was smart to do that because he knew his mammoth military was not designed for dealing with ethnic conflict. Let's face it, American international intervention in the last decade has been a clusterfuck. Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq, it's not exactly batting a thousand. Hilary would be wise to consider that and judge accordingly. A full and complete pullout from Iraq is the only answer. Once that is done, the generals are going to have to accept change is required for the military to deal with the tactical style of the emerging global terrorist menace. Conventional warfare is over. Guerrilla tactics must be refined to beat the enemy at its own game.

[canuckistani]

As for BobF's comments about soldiers getting out to avoid serving under Clinton, well, good riddance. If that's all the loyalty they have to serving their NATION, then they should be gone.

[Violence Worker]

No, the problems is the exact opposite. The military is not a peacekeaper, it is a peace maker - Huge difference.

I agree that our tactics need to change somewhet, but what we must do is not withdraw, but become more capable. We are so damned worried about so-called collateral damage and the bad guys take advantage of that. Our military ventures have been disastrous, not because we can't win, but because we WON'T win.

We have a significant amount of idiots in our government and in the world who think we should be shooting flowers instead of bullets. Bullies, dictators and terrorists are not interested in diplomcy from a stand-point of wanting peace. They use it to buy time, rebuild or to speed up a sneak attack. Look at History and tell me I'm wrong. The only thing the power mad understand is power. And don't give me some shit about the US being power mad. We would like the Islamo-terroist pig lovers to stay home. We would love for the likes of Cuba, North Korea to be peaceful democracies. We would love for the Russians and the Chinese to joins us for lunch at that great peace table and try and find ways to get along. You see Putin doing that? You see the Chinese disarming? Me neither. You want peace, you get peace through strength. You get peace through superior fire power. If the bad guy knows his ass will be handed to him, he isn't so damn bad.

Not to denigrate our brothers and sisters in the Canadian Armed Forces as they are quite capable and you folks have been there for us, but we've been there for you too. You people sit up their in self-righteous smugness advocating peace knowing it has been our shield that has provided a large part of your defense and peace. It's our missiles, our heavy bomber, our nuclear navy, our army and air force, none of which any of you have had to pay a nickel for, that keeps the peace in North America.

While your armed forces are well trained, face it C, it's us, the Big Bad Americans, that allow you to have a small well-trained and capable force. It's us that allows you to spend a relatively small amount on defense while you guys turn your nose up at us and harbor our deserters.

VW

[Violence Worker]

Bob has a valid opinion. I was in the military during the disastrous Carter administration. The military was pretty toothless.

The Clinton's don't like the military. Hillary treated the military with derision and scorn during her time at the white House. At least Bill was usually polite.

Getting out because you don't trust the Commander in Chief is not disloyalty. In America, that is allowed. Hell, I'm glad I got out when I did. I'm glad I have Gearge H.W. Bush's signature on my retirement papers and discharge, and not Clinton's.

I would venture to say that many of those who got out because of Clinton are more loyal than a lot of the Bush haters.

VW

[BobF]

Canucki, when Clinton was elected, hundreds of senior NCO's and officers ended their careers early. These were men and women who have already demonstrated a lifetime of loyalty to this nation. They remember the Clinton's protesting the United States on foreign soil. They knew of the disdain the Clinton's had for the Armed Forces, not only of our country but of yours too. It was Hillary that didn't want military guards at the White House to be in Uniform. They treated the military personnel who maintained AF One as if they were nothings.

Even the Air Force Chief of Staff and Secretary of the Air Force resigned because of Clinton policies.
http://www.af.mil/news/airman/1197/news.htm
http://cgi.stanford.edu/group/wais/cgi-bin/index.php?p=4312

Like VW, I served during that time. Every time their was a scandal in Washington, we deployed. No better way to get peoples minds off scandals than to deploy the troops. Why, the night before the impeachment vote, Clinton launched cruise missiles at WMD sites in Iraq. Did you know that Clinton preached Iraq had WMD's and would use them, all throughout his presidency?

I've got Bill's signature on my retirement certificate.