I think that this author could have answered his headline question with just one sentence: Iraq war veterans haven't had much impact on the debate over the war because most veterans support the war, and that's never been a popular sell.

Reporting that military service members appear to be working hard to learn from their mistakes, avoid civilian casualities, and not repeat the mistakes of the past is a nice pat on the back. Noting that current servicemembers and veterans would have great credibility were they to make their opinions known on the war is a fine compliment, though obviously an overstated one.

Because it strains credulity (at least mine) for the author to not have noticed that the veterans are voting with their feet, so to speak, by avoiding the anti-war movement and all those who would co-op their stories into part of their political message. That lack of database hits? That's the visual evidence of many, many combat boots scooting the other way as fast as they can go.

The article states "If Iraq war veterans have had less political impact, it's certainly not for lack of trying," which hardly jives with the author's own facts about the lack of numbers involved in such anti-war campaigns, and certainly one could look at the (relatively high) re-enlistment rates of Iraq war veterans if one were interested in a reality-check referrendum on the war. Better to say that the Iraq war veterans _against the war_ have had little impact, perhaps because they're NOT in the majority this time, and so speaking out would gain them little, with such a great cloud of witnesses ready to offer a countering opinion.

And not only do these pro-war veterans vote with their feet, by avoiding protests; and with their lives, by re-enlisting; but they are voting with their votes, a concept so basic one would think it might merit consideration. Is the military full of "self-identified political conservatives and Republican partisans," people so partisan and BTW, evil, that they apparently just kill on command without question? Or maybe they're just too stupid to question, that's a generous out the author appears to have left. Or perhaps that very attitude sent otherwise liberal-leaning voters fleeing, because all that dripping self-righteousness and condenscention can be hard to swallow.

Of course those fleeing service members still hold all that hard-earned "moral credibility" about the war, but since nobody appears to listen when they say that their war experience might have taught them that this one is worth fighting, well... let's just admit the whole partisan card is a pretty chicken-and-egg question, hmmm?

Especially since apparently the only choices available to Iraq war veterans (those who are so obviously respected by the public and press) is to count themselves among those who are "dismissive of evidence," and "fearful of the consequences," or else "on ice, still awaiting an opening" to protest the war.

With friends like that... perhaps the desert isn't so scary after all.

I tried to write a post of my own, but gave up because Military Wife said it all, and far more eloquently than I could.

Not only does Krebs fail to listen to the veterans' message, he cannot even get his mind around the possibility that many of them think as Military Wife suggests. To the extent that it crossed his mind at all that veterans might actually support the war effort, he can understand it ONLY in terms of their "partisanship" and "conservatism." He did not examine the possibiliity that support could come, instead, from critical intelligence based on information and personal experience. It never even entered what he calls his mind.

Military Wife makes the excellent point that perhaps the reason we're not seeing a lot of anti-war Iraq vets speak out is because they believe in the war and its success.

From a military standpoint, there HAS been clear success in Iraq. The military does what it does well and does what is asked of them. Failures in Iraq are largely failures of leadership and politics.

And the death toll, upsetting as it is, is much lower than in other conflicts. For Vietnam, most people knew someone who died there. Not so with Iraq. Which, incidentally, also demonstrates that the burdens of the Iraq War are being born by a much smaller and more dedicated group--the all-volunteer army.

Everyone likes to look to history as a guide, which is useful and important. But if you're trying to liken Iraq to any other war, you're going to come up lacking. How we got into the war, who's fighting, the methods and the injuries are VERY different.

I do agree that the Iraq war has been successful in its terms of objectives. There has been a change of power from an unifying leader of the Iraq people to a civil war zone. Which needed to happen to destabilize the Middle East to make the region more controlable as the capitist of the USA have wanted to happen.

The one area that does seem to have issues is how can Bush without angering the capitists, too much, bring about an Old Testament Reunification of the Christian Right's Israel?

As I see it, religion, seems to be the single most unifying factor of most of the soldiers reinlisting. They see the US of A as the savior of the world and that it is Gods will that we use whatever force necessary to protect God's world as they see it.

It is not just a conservative political stance they are taking but a religious political stance they are embracing. This stance over time can not help but bring about the increasing hatred of the USA in the rest of the world. The question I must ask is how far are we willing to go to prove that we are God's choosen people to bring about change in this world?

Interesting. It does seem to be true that most of the families on the base I live on are more devout believers in God then their counterparts in the private sector. I rather attribute this to the old adage "there are no atheists in foxholes," and the idea that people confronted daily with their own mortality or that of those they love will perforce give a higher priority to taking a stand regarding the more common philosophical/afterlife questions.

Unfortunately for your theory of "military as an arm of the religious right" the devout soldiers I know are quite diverse in their belief systems. They are all devout indeed- but to different Gods, churches, and politics. I would love to see a study of the services as a whole regarding religion, it is possible that my anecdotal experience is not representative of the whole. But as it stands, I certainly have no reason to believe this line of thought is true.

politically_incorrect:

Incredible! Your frustration with the religious right actually has you singing the praises of Saddam Hussein's Baathists and the 'stability' of pre-OIF middle east. His role as 'unifying leader of the Iraq people' cost 180,000 Kurds in northern Iraq their lives. Not to mention his eight year war with Iran.

An extreme few aside, U.S. servicemen are not motivated by religion. You have us confused with the typical suicide bomber. Sickening.

ry459 has your comment pegged and I expected ravenfrog to slam the door on you a little harder for that.

Regarding door slamming-
You've heard the one about teaching a pig to knit, right? Don't bother because the pig can't learn and you'll just annoy the pig? Some posts just have that "why even try" factor. *grin*
Thanks for picking up my slack.

Hey!:

politically_incorrect:

Incredible! Your frustration with the religious right actually has you singing the praises of Saddam Hussein's Baathists and the 'stability' of pre-OIF middle east. His role as 'unifying leader of the Iraq people' cost 180,000 Kurds in northern Iraq their lives. Not to mention his eight year war with Iran.

An extreme few aside, U.S. servicemen are not motivated by religion. You have us confused with the typical suicide bomber. Sickening.

Interesting ideas you have, Hey.

Where to start? First of all I did not sing praises for Saddam Hussien or for his Baath Party I simply and plainly pointed out that he had a workable government. Can you say he did not?

Let's see pre 1991 the people though oppressed had one of the highest standard of living of the arab countrie. Oh women even had the right to be teachers and doctors. (Though many Christian would believe in the quiet of their heart that is wrong. At least they in public say that is a good thing). They had the highest rate of education of any of the countries also. They don't now. Moslems and Christians lived side by side without fear of one another. 2001 Iraq had about 10 percent of the population as Christian. Today some say it is less then 1 percent (I have found no reliable figures on this).

Lets leave the Kurd issue out of the arguement unless we desire to bring in the issue of a million or more Iraqie deaths caused by US intervention in Iraq. Deaths caused by stravation, lack of potable water, lack of medince, lack of hospitals. Mostly caused by USA embargoes and USA bombing. Or the fact that the Kurd issue was at least tolerated by the USA until it was in their political interest to make an issue out of.

Think 3 million Native Americans murdered in the expansion westward. In short the Kurd issue is a non issue unless you want to open the flood gates to what is the real motivations to governments.

War with Iran? Oh, you mean the one where the USSR supported Iran and the USA supported Iraq? Again unless you want to open the flood gates to what is the real motivations to governments were, we need leave this one alone, also.

I live in the the rural northern reaches of the Heartland of America and so I hear much and very few servicemen or women do not stress their Christian God as the reason they feel so strongly in what they are doing in Iraq and that God has a reason for us to be there. It may not be the case all over but at least what I see on the TV news would support that point. (Of course both the conservatives and the liberals know that the news can not be trusted because the other side controls all of the news in the USA!)

Yes, I can say comfortably that Saddam Hussein did not have a 'workable government.' By that standard of reasoning, Adolf Hitler had a 'workable government' in 1939. Not one I favor.

You may hear much in the Heartland of America, however, I was an Army officer for six years and in the Army for eleven years. I can speak from the experience of having held the responsibility of urging Soldiers to reenlist. If nothing else, I know their motivation.

Your contention that the U.S. policy towards Native Americans negates any validity to our current policy in the middle east is not logical. Keeping the analogy, we ought to have allowed the Germans to slaughter the entire European Jewish population because, who are we to judge?

Also, I feel terribly for those poor Iraqis and Iranians forced to kill each other by their U.S. and Soviet puppetmasters. If only the Americans and Russians kept out of it, the Sunni Iraq regime and Shiite Iranian regime would have lived peacefully with each other.

In case you can't tell, I mean to say that the blame for Iraq-Iran in the 1980s does not lie on U.S. or Soviet heads. Sunnis and Shiites have been killing each other enthusiastically for hundreds of years and continue to do so. Our presence in Iraq today has damped a violent Sunni-Shia war.

You clearly have some serious frustration with both our government and the religious right(me too) , but, you must not let it blind you to the positive achievements we have made as a country. There are plenty of more virile foriegn elements who will spout your sort of bile and they aren't just words. Everyday they attempt to back it up with dead Americans and I can not imagine that you support that.

Hey!:

Yes, I can say comfortably that Saddam Hussein did not have a 'workable government.' By that standard of reasoning, Adolf Hitler had a 'workable government' in 1939. Not one I favor.

History suggests Hitler did have a workable government. If or not we agree with his use of that government is another matter.

You may hear much in the Heartland of America, however, I was an Army officer for six years and in the Army for eleven years. I can speak from the experience of having held the responsibility of urging Soldiers to reenlist. If nothing else, I know their motivation.

When were you an officer? And please expand on what in your experience was their motivation at that time?

Your contention that the U.S. policy towards Native Americans negates any validity to our current policy in the middle east is not logical.

I bring this issue up merely to say that we need to look at all that motivates, people do to that which they do. And to say look if we want to condemn others for being bad people, are we better ourselves. At what point to we have to say we don't want to stand on the grounds of someone that came before us?

A case in point is Hitler's Germanies studies on hypothermia, much of what we know about hypothermia I understand comes from the ground work that was done in Hitler's Germany. Most often resulting in the death of the subjects. (This is not an easy subject to answer! Personally if I were dieing of hypothermia I would not turn down the knowledge to save me because it came from the murder of innocent life's. This is not to say I like but merely to accept that the world is not always fair).

Keeping the analogy, we ought to have allowed the Germans to slaughter the entire European Jewish population because, who are we to judge?

Hummmmmm, I love this statement! If I read history right the evidence points toward the geneticist in northern Europe and the USA more or less felt the removable of the Jews from the gene pool would be a good thing. The only reason that only 5 million Jews were killed (note that number is disputed) was that Hitler got greedy and went after more land. But as you say who are we to judge? Just don't take that holier then thou attitude with me. Cause I don't buy it!

Also, I feel terribly for those poor Iraqis and Iranians forced to kill each other by their U.S. and Soviet puppetmasters. If only the Americans and Russians kept out of it, the Sunni Iraq regime and Shiite Iranian regime would have lived peacefully with each other.

Well we do agree on something. :)

In case you can't tell, I mean to say that the blame for Iraq-Iran in the 1980s does not lie on U.S. or Soviet heads. Sunnis and Shiites have been killing each other enthusiastically for hundreds of years and continue to do so. Our presence in Iraq today has damped a violent Sunni-Shia war.

I agree that the blame does not lie on the US and USSR leaders for their killing each other. However, I do believe the scale of the killing lays plainly on the US AND USSR LEADERSHIP.

Actually our present has make the violences worse in the long run. We are not in a position to put another strong leader into the position of leadership to keep them at arms length. We put Hussein in power and had we been interested in peace in the Middle East we would have left him there.

A point that I was trying to make early seems to have been lost. And that is that it is in the capitalists interests to have a destabilized Middle East. It makes the oil easier to get cheap. But not too cheap.

You clearly have some serious frustration with both our government and the religious right(me too) ,

Yes I do have serious frustrations with them. However does not allow me the right not to try to understand where they are coming from. And if in that understanding I am repulsed and find that I should try to do something about it, then I have a responsibility to something. I would love to say more about the Religious Right but at this point I have not had the opening to do so.

but, you must not let it blind you to the positive achievements we have made as a country.

Yes the USA has done much good in the world, but we can not leave that blind us when she does and is doing harm. so that we do nothing to stop her.

There are plenty of more virile foriegn elements who will spout your sort of bile and they aren't just words. Everyday they attempt to back it up with dead Americans and I can not imagine that you support that.

I find it interesting that you call what I say, "bile." While I disagree with you on many things I have not resorted to name calling. I have tried to look at all the sides of the issues and I find all sides wanting for solid ground to stand on.

Let us try to reason with each other in humbleness and understanding.

...please allow me to add my two cents worth. I retired just a few years ago after 24 years of military service. I supported the war while in. I have to admit, after WMD were not located I found my faith shaken and perhaps that's why I got out.

At any rate, why am I so adamently opposed to war now? Because I am not in the military fold. I really hate to call it brainwashing but when you are surrounded by your friends and your comrades you focus all your energy on the task at hand. It's a 24 hour way of life. You can never leave it behind. It's a job we all volunteered for and what sort of people do a job they volunteered for and then complain about it?

You can't belong to something and not believe. When you cease to believe you can't belong anymore.

I have no doubt of the real feelings of my military comrades. They are smart, thoughtful and tough but they are in a circumstance that colors what they do.

No, thank you.

I can not reason with someone who is defending Nazi Germany on their hypothermia research and implicating the FDR government in Holocaust planning. It is just too much. I meant to use Naziism as something generally considered undesirable.

But to answer your question: 1996-2007, commissioned 2001. I led troops in combat in Al Anbar. This featured the reentry into Fallujah and the Jan 2004 free elections.

Hey!:

No, thank you.

I can not reason with someone who is defending Nazi Germany on their hypothermia research and implicating the FDR government in Holocaust planning. It is just too much. I meant to use Nazism as something generally considered undesirable.

I don't remember defending the Nazi government. I did however, point out that knowing a treatment that was I was to receive was based on research on hypothermia from Nazi Germany would save my life. I would not turn it down. Am I to assume that if you were dieing from hypothermia that you would refuse the treatment based on you knowing that fact?

I did not say that the FDR's government had anything to do with the planning of the Holocaust. I said that the geneticists from the USA and northern Europe tended to agree that the removal of the Jews from the human gene pool was not a bad thing. I AM NOT SAYING THAT I AGREE WITH THEM! And that over all, the US and European governments were happy to leave Hitler do his thing as long as he stayed at home.

But to answer your question: 1996-2007, commissioned 2001. I led troops in combat in Al Anbar. This featured the reentry into Fallujah and the Jan 2004 free elections.

Thank you but would you expand on your service time and tell us how troops looked at reenlistment?

Adrasteia wrote the following post at 03/10/2008 8:47 PM:

...please allow me to add my two cents worth.

Interesting thoughts Adrasteia. I liked your "two cents." It gave a idea what you were thinking and feeling. I really like that. It gives everyone something to think about. if they agree with you or not.

Thanks again for your two cents.

We put Hussein in power and had we been interested in peace in the Middle East we would have left him there.

I tend to agree with you in regards to certain things, but I must disagree with you on this point.

Saddam Hussein was an extremely unpeaceful presence in the Middle East. Between his war with Iran, his massacre of the Kurds and his invasion of Kuwait, he was distrusted by practically every one of his neighbors. He flouted every UN resolution made against his nation and basically thumbed his nose at the rest of the world.

Knowing this, I fail to see how leaving him in power would have been beneficial to peace in the region. Please explain your comment if you would, for based on the facts I've listed above, logically the man could not be good for long term peace in the ME.