BCT Editorial – 8/31/05

This page was last updated on August 31, 2005.

Full support; Editorial; Beaver County Times; August 31, 2005.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Americans did learn at least one thing from the Vietnam War - not to blame the troops in the field for the blunders of policy makers.

“The most recent Associated Press/Ipsos poll found that 45 percent of the 1,001 adults surveyed strongly disapprove of the way the Bush administration has conducted the war in Iraq while 13 percent somewhat disagree.

“That’s an overall disagreement rate of 58 percent, or almost three in five Americans. (The poll had a 3 percent margin of error.)”

[RWC] The editorial fails to note we should expect a large amount of disagreement simply because slightly less than half of the voters voted for President Bush. If you voted for John Kerry, how likely is it you would support President Bush in any endeavor? Therefore, you have a built-in disagreement rate of about 48% before a pollster even asks a question. I’m sure some people who voted for President Bush disapprove and some who voted for Kerry approve.

“But what makes this war different from Vietnam is that this dissatisfaction has not carried over to the men and women who are doing the fighting in Iraq.

“Unlike the Vietnam era, Americans are not taking out their anger and frustration on members of the military. They are supporting the troops.”

[RWC] I guess that’s why there are protesters outside Walter Reed Army Hospital demeaning the efforts of the wounded soldiers inside. All the American left learned in this regard from Vietnam was to say you support the troops regardless of your true feelings. That’s why the mainstream media has chosen to cover – kind of – Cindy Sheehan but not the protesters outside Walter Reed.

“Finally, in response to those who say you can’t support the troops and not the Bush administrations’ war in Iraq, is it supporting the troops to ignore post-war policies that have proved to be disastrous, is it supporting the troops to see a first-class military being ground up, is it supporting the troops to remain silent when they are sent into battle by their so-called leaders with inadequate equipment or, in the case of Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles, no equipment at all while private contractors are making billions?”

[RWC] What a crock! These are worn out talking points already disproved. This appears to be a rant by someone who learned that an ABC News poll found that Cindy Sheehan’s antics had no effect on 79% of us and even convinced another 10% of those polled to support the Iraq War.

“By now it should be clear that by jettisoning the Powell Doctrine - which simply holds that when the United States is fighting a war, every resource and tool should be used to achieve overwhelming force against the enemy and have a clear exit strategy and timetable - this administration failed to learn an important lesson from Vietnam.”

[RWC] More deception. As I recall it, the “Powell Doctrine” was about overwhelming force. It had nothing to do with a so-called “exit strategy” – code for pullout timetable – and troop withdrawal timetables before a war was won. I could be wrong, but I don’t believe Gen. Colin Powell (ret) – or any military leader – would ever support a withdrawal timetable before a war was won.

I couldn’t find any quotes attributable to Colin Powell with respect to “exit strategy.” If I ever do, I expect to find Powell’s definition of exit strategy will be different from the Times’ definition. I would expect any mention of exit strategy by Powell to refer to actions after victory. When the Times and its fellow travelers refer to an exit strategy, they mean a timetable for troop withdrawal before the war is won.

“Unfortunately, it is not the hubristic policy makers in Washington who are paying the price for their arrogance.”

[RWC] When it comes to arrogance, perhaps the editorial writers shouldn’t throw rocks. Regarding hubris, what are some examples of exaggerated pride or self-confidence? I want our leaders to be self-confident and to show pride in their country. In my opinion, Jimmy Carter was an example of a president who lacked self-confidence.

“Don’t let up on them.

“They deserve every bit of criticism that is coming their way. The blood of Iraq is on their hands, not the troops carrying out this mission.”

[RWC] The authors appear to be having a “wacko left” moment. The terrorists attacked us for decades, and we’re to blame when we finally have a president who said enough is enough.