All this means is that the troops will be deployed to the front lines for 12 months minus one day, move them to what will be claimed as being off of the front lines, and kept there for the rest of the 15 months.
Posted by jwrjr at April 10, 2008 11:31 AMHe said the change would take effect on Aug. 1, and would affect U.S. forces already deployed on the front lines.
I heard it will NOT affect forces already deployed. I feel really sorry for those being deployed between now and Aug 1 who will still have to be over there for 15 months.
Posted by CG at April 10, 2008 12:38 PMThe lesson to all this should be quite clear.
Kids, don't volunteer for any branch of the US military. Just say NO, no matter how much blood money the man in the nice uniform promises you. And it will seem like a lot.
No one can any longer claim they didn't know what would happen to them as a result of joining the Imperial sturmtruppen.
Turkana:
Excellent piece of writing. You would think that the continuation of this war will be benificial for Democrats for November election. Do not bet on it. When McCain equates himself with victory in Iraq and equates Democratic nominee with defeat in Iraq, the naive American public, especially from midwest and south, will vote McCain in. What a pity.
Posted by suresh at April 10, 2008 01:16 PMSuresh, what the Dems need to do is re-frame that meme to the reality of the situation, which is McCain equals continuing defeat in Iraq and throughout the world, while the Democratic nominee equals an end to warmongering which will eventually destroy our country.
Euzoius, wasn't that always true, though? I mean, as a kid, I was never fooled by those recruiters. I don't think anyone ever was except those who leaned toward supporting the Imperium in the first place.
Personally, I thought the most interesting part of the speech was Bush calling out Iran, again. I still don't believe we're out of the danger zone on that, and I probably won't believe so until after Bush and Cheney are gone.
Posted by Brian Bell at April 10, 2008 01:51 PMBrian B, the All Volunteer Force and all its material blandishments only got going after Vietnam, right?, and the country had a decidedly bad taste in its mouth towards lying generals and absurd overseas military adventures then.
It took our new "conservative" movement some time (starting with Reagan and Hollywood's new teary-eyed troop worship) to get the militarism pot back to the boil, and the high tech, massive firepower AVF was thought the perfect tool for the sort of uneccessary imperial military adventures PNAC and Cheneyism envision.
Our country now seems to have a propaganda of Offical Militarism with accompanying troop worship and that causes many uninformed and easily manipulated young people (particulary those with ex-military family members) to fall for the whole ball of jingoist wax.
There's not many "voices" on cable TV news or among our leaders (national or state) that challenge our New Militarism. That's my take anyway. Have you read Andrew Bacevich's book on American militarism?
And I will be very, very surprised if in Jan 2009 Cheney's fat ass flies back to whatever state he supposedly is from without a massive attack on Iran having occurred. That is the final, logical endgame of Cheneyism and I believe he is doing all he can to foment and accomplish it---perhaps with Petraeus as CentCom chief later this year. This was why Fallon had to go. He was misread by Cheney.
Posted by euzoius at April 10, 2008 02:33 PM"Personally, I thought the most interesting part of the speech was Bush calling out Iran, again. I still don't believe we're out of the danger zone on that, and I probably won't believe so until after Bush and Cheney are gone."
Brian, Bush and Cheney being out of the WH is no assurance either, especially if McCain becomes the next president. McCain just this week said in a speech Wednesday, that he believes in preempted strikes, especially when someone poses a threat to our security (and investments).
After reading Turkana's words, I find it disgusting that trolls come here and say we don't support the troops. Our politicians don't support the troops either. They fund the continuation of the occupation, and not one of the candidates has the balls to face this Country and tell the truth about Iraq. We need to face the fact that this occupation is not going to end, whether a Democrat or Republican sits in the WH.
Posted by Judith at April 10, 2008 02:55 PMCheney may be willing to hand the Iran attack off to McSame's watch.
If the Dem wins in Nov, look for a massive attack by Jan.
Posted by euzoius at April 10, 2008 03:06 PMsuresh, the American people are already blaming Bush's war of aggression for the recession
Posted by gay veteran at April 10, 2008 03:41 PM"Cheney's fat ass flies back to whatever state he supposedly is from without a massive attack on Iran"
Euzoius, I started to read "without a massive heart attack. (Freudian slip of the mind tee hee)
Posted by Judith at April 10, 2008 03:56 PMeuzoius, As long as recruiters have access to all the private information of students the job of blackmailing them to join gets easier. I can imagine it will get to the point when recruiter's start applying pressure by them saying not joining is unpatriotic (no flag pin)... spreading malicious rumors about them to their workplace (he's gay)... finally, it's releasing imformation about medical conditions such as ADHD or worse.
The ignorant, poor and criminal will always find the military appealing.
That leaves poor saps like me who thought we would actually get something in return for serving.
I guess if you come out healthy with no conscious you can say you have gained something. Being republi-con?
Gay Vet, surely Bush's war of aggression -- an apt and accurate description of the Iraq war -- is doing a lot to cause the recession. It's not the only cause, but surely it is part.
Euzious and Judith, I hope you're wrong about Cheney and Bush and Iraq, I really do. Despite any warmongering comments McCancer -- oooh, that's just not funny, is it? -- has made about Iran and his complete lack of understanding there, I don't believe Johnny McCain has the taste for the blood nor the outright stupidity that Cheney and Bush have, respectively. I mean, McCain has shown he could be cruel and dumb, but he's not demonstrated, to me anyway, Cheney and Bush levels of sickness, and hopefully never will, and hopefully will never get a chance to do so.
Euzious, having grown up during the Reagan years, I can say with 100% certainty that there was actually a good many old liberals still around, both through the media and in young people's personal lives, old hippie teachers and the like. I imagine most of those folks are retired now. So, yeah, the militarism might not be countered at all these days, which is sad. I did have teachers around who would and did tell kids straight about what they were signing up for. They were respectful about it, but they didn't let kids sign up without telling them their beliefs that the military is a decidedly sharp and double-sided instrument which may be used for nefarious as well as democratic purposes. You, Euzious, may have a point that the Official Militarism has taken over, with few if any countervailing views anywhere in young peoples' lives, and that is different than when I grew up. When I grew up it was the kids who were comfortable with that who signed up for it. Today's kids may not have a clue. Sad. And no, Euzious, I haven't heard of that book, but I will check it out.
Posted by Brian Bell at April 10, 2008 05:48 PMEuzious and Judith, I just realized I meant to say, I hope you're wrong about IRAN, I really do.
Posted by Brian Bell at April 10, 2008 05:51 PMMcCain said on Wednesday he would not rule out launching preemptive wars against future enemies.
President George W. Bush, in launching his 2003 invasion of Iraq, said it was necessary to forestall possible future attacks from a country that was developing weapons of mass destruction.
[snip]
When asked at a town hall meeting about the Bush policy on preemption, McCain said: "I don't think you can make a blanket statement about preemptive war because obviously it depends on the threat that the United States of America faces."
Posted by Judith at April 10, 2008 09:09 PM