The Less than One Percenters

Loading

xq03M

For a country that’s been engaged in two major theaters of war for around the last 13 years, much of the service and sacrifice has been made by the true 1%’ers.

A 2013 Pew Research article reports that only a 5th of the Congress at the time had any military experience, themselves.

Not all that long ago, military service was practically a requirement for serving in Congress. The high point in recent decades was the 95th Congress (1977-78) when, following an influx of Vietnam-era veterans, a combined 77% of the House and Senate had served in the armed forces. But as World War II veterans have retired and relatively few Americans enlist in the all-volunteer armed forces, veterans account for a smaller and smaller share of Congress.

Veterans-and-Congress_1That reflects the wider trend in U.S. society. According to Census figures, veterans currently make up about 7% of the overall population, down from 13.7% in 1970 — when the Vietnam War was raging and the draft was still in place. As a 2011 Pew Research Center report noted, the post-9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been fought by a historically small U.S. military; this has contributed to a distance between the military and civilian society. While Americans overwhelmingly say they feel proud of those who’ve served and appreciate their sacrifices, 71% say most Americans know little or nothing about the problems faced by military personnel; about as many (74%) oppose reinstating a draft.

If ordinary American citizens who benefit from the service and sacrifice of soldiers and the families who directly support them don’t have personal blood and treasure at stake themselves, it creates for a detached citizenry.

I think one of the most important aspects of Eastwood’s American Sniper is its portrayal of the jarring difference between being “over there” and being back here at home where most Americans go about their daily business, care-free and sheltered from the harsh conditions and brutal realities faced by our military men and women serving in theater. Our care-free American lives and livelihood is made possible only because of the few willing to enlist and militarily serve.

This article is spot-on:

Like nearly everything else—a ball game, a rock concert, a political debate—anyone who buys a ticket or takes the time to watch instantly becomes a critic. And today, with twitter and texting and all the other tools we have literally at our fingertips, a debate quickly turns into a cyber-space brawl.

People on the left go back and forth with those on the right about the movie’s merits. Is it pro-war? Is it anti-war? And while a platoon of professional essayists, film aficionados and all around ‘I’m smarter-than-you’ folks attack one another’s opinions, there seem to be a couple items that have been forgotten along the side of the long road we’ve traveled for 15 years—15 years!—in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The most obvious is the lack of attention paid to the fact that only about one percent of our population has borne the weight of war. Then there are the families left behind while those fighting are deployed multiple times to both theaters—Iraq and Afghanistan—breaking the military and too often breaking those who sit state-side, worrying, waiting, while 99% of everyone around them dances through the day without any real prospect of danger or death knocking on their door.

Mike Barnicle concludes:

A friend of mine who worked on American Sniper for months and attended several screenings in places as different as Dallas, Los Angeles, New York City and Washington D.C. had an interesting observation that mutes some of the ideological ‘wars’ that have consumed multiple critics conducting operations from the safety of their laptops and iPhones.

It revolved around the scene where Chris Kyle sights, shoots and kills the major-league caliber Iraqi sniper from a distance of more than a mile away. In a sand storm.

At a screening in L.A. and New York, the crowd cheered. In Dallas there was no cheering. And when the film was screened at one site in Washington there was only a heavy silence.

At the LA theater I was at, there was only heavy silence at the end of the movie, as well.

Where was that location? Walter Reed National Medical Center, where the wounded, the limbless, the brain damaged are treated for injuries that linger forever and are largely forgotten by a country and a culture where more attention is paid to deflated footballs than the needs and cost of caring for men and women who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.

American Sniper is a movie. War is a grim reality and with us still.

I don’t know much about Bradley Cooper. But his experience in working with the movie seems to have instilled the right respect and appreciation that all Americans should feel- that deep sense of personal gratitude for every man and woman who proudly wear the uniform of our armed forces.

It’s a cruel twist of fate that Chris Kyle lost his life not on the battlefield, but here at home; and he was killed doing what all Americans should be doing: Caring for those who carry the scars of wars fought on our behalf (yes, on our behalf whether you agree or disagree with any particular war).

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
51 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I just saw the movie this Saturday (Dallas area). My wife and I took our two oldest grandsons (15 & 17). I don’t remember a movie that did not show the funny out-takes at the end where people sat through the credits (showing the Kyle funeral procession; feelings of great sadness and intense pride). Also, after the movie, as everyone left the theater, not a word was spoken; utter silence.

It’s a cruel twist of fate that Chris Kyle lost his life not on the battlefield, but here at home; and he was killed doing what all Americans should be doing: Caring for those who carry the scars of wars fought on our behalf (yes, on our behalf whether you agree or disagree with any particular war).

He was killed over here, but he was still fighting the war; fighting the oppressive effects war has on those who do a job they are in no way equipped or suited for: killing and risking being killed.

God Bless each and every one of those brave patriots. There are no words to adequately express it.

It’s a cruel twist of fate that Chris Kyle lost his life not on the battlefield, but here at home; and he was killed doing what all Americans should be doing: Caring for those who carry the scars of wars fought on our behalf (yes, on our behalf whether you agree or disagree with any particular war).

And yet the left hates him for it.

The focus of the left with regard to Kyle being a sniper, and somehow classifying that combat job as being “cowardly”, or somehow illegitimate demonstrates the total lack of understanding of the reality of war. War is not meant to fall into any paradigm of “fairness”. It is not neat and tidy, or designed with a time limit like a sporting event. There is no requirement for the opposing sides to have the same equipment or the same number of participants. It is deadly serious, and the price for losing is exponentially more painful and costly than failing to make it to the superbowl.

You prepare for war with the intent of becoming so good at it, that any potential opponent is too terrified to risk having to face you on the battlefield. You use every tool, every advantage at your disposal, to lessen (if not destroy) your opponent’s ability to fight back. Snipers are such a tool, as Kyle so aptly demonstrated.

@drjohn:

And yet the left hates him for it.

Moronic drama. And quite insulting.

@Pete:

he focus of the left with regard to Kyle being a sniper, and somehow classifying that combat job as being “cowardly”, or somehow illegitimate demonstrates the total lack of understanding of the reality of war.

The “focus on the left” – or what one person, a D list celebrity, wrote in an ill-advised social media post? You’re a smart guy, how does one honestly turn one twitter comment into the feelings of millions of people? Roughly 2/3 of Americas use some form of social media. The idea that a twitter comment by anyone about anything means something larger is preposterous and intellectually lazy. Propagandists, like Dr John, who desperately want to “prove” the Left hates Chris Kyle, were bound to find someone on Twitter or Facebook saying something idiotic, because that’s what people do on social media. Anyone who wants to be defined by what anyone else in America who identifies as conservative tweets, step forward. We’ll set you right up.

@Tom:

You must have missed Seth Rogen’s comments, as well as the Hollywood nomenclatura effort to pan the film.

@Pete:

So you’re up to two people. I have no doubt you can get to ten, if you really put Google to the test. That only leaves tens of millions of people on “the left” for whom you’re assigning opinions. You have a documentary film maker and a comedian who claims his comments have been taken out of context. Pete, do you like it when people stereotype you based upon the words of others? It sounds like you do.

the Hollywood nomenclatura effort to pan the film.

Are you talking about the same film nominated for six Oscars, including Best Picture, BY HOLLYWOOD? For your narrative to work, you need to separate American Sniper from Hollywood and put them in opposition, as if Moses carried the holy reels for the film off Mt Sinai himself. But inconvenient for you are the facts that American Sniper is a Hollywood product, made by a Hollywood studio, starring a Hollywood star, and directed by a Hollywood legend who has worked, and been paid, in Hollywood for five decades. And it’s been embraced by the mainstream media, in terms of positive reviews, and the Hollywood establishment, in terms of award nominations.

@Pete:

And Matt Taibbi

And all the left wing commenters on Politico. They shared Rogen’s and Moore’s sentiments.

It may be easier to just paste a few positive reviews from liberal sites…Oh crud, just ruined my “no snark” Monday.

@Tom: Your #5 and #7 spell it out. Hollywood made the film and nominated it for Best Picture. Libs loved it I loved it What’s the argument?

War and fairness are not compatible. One reason we develop things like “stealth” capability is to have an advantage the other side does not.

@Mully: One of the reasons our military budgets are so high; we spend a lot of money on development of technology that will keep soldiers alive, as well as a lot of training.

The US is the top dog on the block. There will be challenges to that position. Either we resolve to maintain for the good of the majority of the nations of the world or we relinquish the post to someone like Russia, China or Iran and live with the results.

@Pete:

You must have missed Seth Rogen’s comments

Seth Rogen backtracked, a lot.

@Tom:

American Sniper is a Hollywood product, made by a Hollywood studio, starring a Hollywood star, and directed by a Hollywood legend who has worked, and been paid, in Hollywood for five decades. And it’s been embraced by the mainstream media, in terms of positive reviews, and the Hollywood establishment, in terms of award nominations.

There are quite a few on the left talking down the film and Chris Kyle. But most are just the usual suspects that believe it is their sworn duty to stir the crap. Just like there are those on the right that have the same sworn duty, just on different topics.
I haven’t seen the movie yet. I hate going to the movies any more. But I’m going to go to this one. Just need the crowds to die down a little. That doesn’t seem to be happening.

@Tom:

Just because you can’t read for yourself, doesn’t mean I have to run on your stupid hamster wheel. Deny it all you want, but you can do your own google search and see for yourself the negative comments from Rolling Stone and a host of their comrades-in-arms attacking the film as pro-US propaganda. And yes, they are all leftists, and far more than tbe 2 I named off the top of my head.

And if you had any intelligence or honesty, you would admit -after another google search of your own – that there have been numerous media reports of a campaign in Hollywood circles to pan/criticize/attack the film, oscar nominations or not.

Just because you choose to stick your fingers in your ears, squint your eyes shut and chant “I am not listening lalalala” doesn’t mean I am obligated to do your homework for you.

The left was bashing Chris Kyle well before the release of this film. Google search the dispute between him and Jesse Ventura and you’ll find plenty of examples of the left calling Kyle names and berating his service. Trying to make it sound like the left were unabashed supporters of those who served in Iraq or our mission there is a gross distortion of reality. Remember the protests which coincidently stopped once Obama was in office even though we were still in country? Remember which politicians compared the troops to mass murderers and terrorists? Remember how many on the left denounced those same politicians for making the statements? Remember how Joe Lieberman was driven out of the Party for supporting the war? Remember Occupy? This is a repeat of how the left now claims that they knew all along about all that WMD that was found in Iraq. Another gross lie.

Does that mean everyone who leans left feels that way? No. But the overwhelming majority do. The ones that don’t fall into the category of liberal (modern definition not traditional, big difference) as opposed to leftist.

@Pete:

And if you had any intelligence or honesty, you would admit -after another google search of your own – that there have been numerous media reports of a campaign in Hollywood circles to pan/criticize/attack the film, oscar nominations or not.

@another+vet:

The left was bashing Chris Kyle well before the release of this film. Google search the dispute between him and Jesse Ventura and you’ll find plenty of examples of the left calling Kyle names and berating his service.

Find me a biopic that doesn’t spur debate over historical accuracy. Within the last several months, Selma received more heated and damaging criticism regarding the veracity of its depiction of LBJ than anything I’ve read about Kyle. I personally don’t see much of a point in expecting historical veracity in entertainment, but to label such debates about the depiction of Kyle as some sort of treasonous insult to his memory is ridiculous. (Obviously, I’m referring to serious criticisms here, not the rantings of D-list celebs on Twitter). If you want to place Kyle on a pedestal, be my guest – he certainly is deserving of praise for his service. But if you want to simplify him and in the process place him beyond criticism, as if he himself were not a complex person, then you are taking away his agency and reducing him to a symbol, a tool for your own ends. Labeling people who question the historical accuracy or the intent of a work of art as treasonous is a bit much, even from the hysterical Right.

Trying to make it sound like the left were unabashed supporters of those who served in Iraq or our mission there is a gross distortion of reality.

Here we come to the crux of the issue. The Neo-cons who want to place Kyle on a pedestal, to use him for propaganda purposes, are the same people who will question the patriotism of anyone who dares to question the use of force in our foreign policy. But it’s the Kyles of the world, not the Dick Cheneys, who pay the price. Kyle died because of choices that were made in regards to the use of US military force. Those choices have long ranging consequences. The man who killed Kyle was a casualty of those decisions as well, in another sense. I don’t think anyone should be attacked for questioning the use of force and pointing out the consequences to the men and women who are put in harms way. Maybe we have different definitions of patriotism in that regard. Would Chris Kyle rather be a dead saint of the Neo-con right, who will use his story to drum up support for sending more American men and women overseas, or just a man who is alive and with his family? Put another way, this whole idea that questioning the wisdom of the Iraq war is bashing Kyle is bullshit. The guy is a tragic hero, not a warmongers’ propaganda puppet.

@another+vet:

Does that mean everyone who leans left feels that way? No. But the overwhelming majority do

And exactly how did you arrive at that conclusion? Show me one piece of data showing that those on “the left” don’t support the men and women in uniform. Are you aware of the distinction between supporting the military and agreeing with any specific US policy choice? Let me guess, you KNOW because you read it on Flopping Aces, or one of the other impartial websites you traffic in. You, being a guy who obviously is open-minded about “the left”, would never jump to conclusions otherwise. What a laugh. Let me set you straight on something, buddy. You are the person who is full of hatred for an entire group of people, whom you habitability slander and stereotype. The proof of that is the sum total of everything you write that includes the words “left” or “liberal”. I live in a liberal town and I know hundreds of liberals, and I’ve never met one person who fits the stereotype you’re selling. Seems to me that you’re just desperate to justify your own ugly rhetoric and feelings.

@another+vet: Ventura is a Libertarian/self promoter—he’s always bashed the left and the right with equal vengeance.
When I say awarded Navy Cross, Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, two Purple Hearts and a Strong supporter of our military and the 2nd Amendment, I’m not talking about any of the Repub. officeholders or candidates for POTUS. Certainly not talking about chicken hawks like Cheney.
Any guesses from FA’ers?

@Tom:

But if you want to simplify him and in the process place him beyond criticism, as if he himself were not a complex person, then you are taking away his agency and reducing him to a symbol, a tool for your own ends.

Point out specifically where I said he was not a complex person. Burden of proof is on you.

Kyle died because of choices that were made in regards to the use of US military force.

Kyle was not killed on the battlefield. Prove that he was killed because of choices that were made in regards to military force. Just because his killer suffered from PTSD doesn’t prove cause and effect.

And exactly how did you arrive at that conclusion?

Who do you think those protestors were? Neocons? Is Durbin a conservative? How about Kerry or Kennedy? They are/were leftists. Show me pictures of conservatives taking to the streets protesting the war effort. Those of us who were there know damn well who bashed us and who didn’t. Deny it all you want but they were from the left. Again, the burden of proof is on you to cite specific examples of conservative groups taking to the streets protesting the war effort which by the way gives hope to our enemies. Ask those who were there instead of relying on your at home sources.

What a laugh. Let me set you straight on something, buddy. You are the person who is full of hatred for an entire group of people, whom you habitability slander and stereotype. The proof of that is the sum total of everything you write that includes the words “left” or “liberal”

As are you when talking about conservatives. Ever read some of your own writings? It’s full of the same slander and stereotype you accuse me of. Please get off the high horse.

I live in a liberal town and I know hundreds of liberals, and I’ve never met one person who fits the stereotype you’re selling.

You are so angry you must not be able to comprehend this statement of mine:

Does that mean everyone who leans left feels that way? No. But the overwhelming majority do. The ones that don’t fall into the category of liberal (modern definition not traditional, big difference) as opposed to leftist.

Now if you want to clump your liberal town in the same category as leftists such as Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan etc. that’s your prerogative. I have stated numerous times on FA that there is a big difference between a leftist and a liberal. Perhaps in your stereotyping and slandering you decided not to pay attention to it.

@Rich Wheeler:

When I say awarded Navy Cross, Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, two Purple Hearts and a Strong supporter of our military and the 2nd Amendment, I’m not talking about any of the Repub. officeholders or candidates for POTUS.

Surely you are not referring to Ventura. He was never in VN even though he tried to make people believe he was. BTW- you aren’t talking about any Dems either. Duly noted that once again referring to chicken hawks you conveniently left out Clinton, Reid, Biden etc. I’m sure you won’t be accused of stereotyping though.

@another+vet: Ventura? hell no Wanna take another guess?
First hint Semper Fi

@Rich Wheeler: He’ll never win the dem primary although in the unlikely event he does, I think he would be the best candidate your party put forth in a long time. I’d like to see him run as a third party candidate just to knock the two parties off their high horse.

@Rich Wheeler:

Any guesses from FA’ers?

Jim Webb. Way too easy.

@Aqua: Certainly too easy for one possessing such an astute political awareness.
You like Perry. I think he’ll come out, boots on and guns blazing in late March. He’s been buried by bad press and the remembrance of his 2012 performance. I’ve got him seeded 8th in a field of at least 14.–Behind Bush, Romney, Paul, Kasich, Huckabee, Walker, Rubio—leading–Christie, Carson, Haley(my sleeper), Cruz, Pence, Huntsman—–field horse Sarah

What say you?

@another+vet:

Point out specifically where I said he was not a complex person. Burden of proof is on you.

When you imply that any criticism of Kyle, or should I say his factual depiction in the film, is “bashing” or worse, you are placing him on a level beyond reproach. Let’s remember that some of the criticisms of the film are for eliding incidents about Kyle that appeared in Kyle’s own book. As I said above, I think it’s pointless to pick apart entertainment in this manner, but I don’t think it’s traitorous.

Who do you think those protestors were? Neocons? Is Durbin a conservative? How about Kerry or Kennedy? They are/were leftists. Show me pictures of conservatives taking to the streets protesting the war effort. Those of us who were there know damn well who bashed us and who didn’t. Deny it all you want but they were from the left. Again, the burden of proof is on you to cite specific examples of conservative groups taking to the streets protesting the war effort which by the way gives hope to our enemies. Ask those who were there instead of relying on your at home sources.

I am completely comfortable with your assertion that most, though certainly not all, of the American citizens who didn’t unreservedly support the Iraq War are left of center. But you seem to have a hard time grasping that not supporting the war is completely different than not supporting the troops. For many Americans – and I count myself amongst them – one of the biggest considerations when weighing the pros and cons of any decision to use military force is the cost to those who serve. I understand that you are proud of your service, as you should be. I am not one to claim that many good things were not done in Iraq by the Americans such as yourself with boots on the ground. Furthermore, I was a liberal who initially (if somewhat reluctantly) supported Bush’s decision, based upon the intel presented by Powell and the Administrations claims of how the war would play out. So this is not, I told you so, because I was right there with you. But the facts are that every claim made by the Administration as to how the war would play out turned out to be disastrously off-base, and that certainly made me reevaluate my support for the Administrations’ claims as to how and why we went there, but not for my feelings regarding the men and women carrying out the mission. The thing you and others at FA seem to never want to understand is that the public support for the invasion was never just about claims of WMD. It was also predicated upon other important considerations. We were sold an easy war, but it didn’t turn out that way. Would the American people have supported this war if we were told it was going to cost Six Trillion Dollars, which is 100 times what the Bush Administration claimed? Conservatives like to say Obama lost the war, but would there have been a war if the American Public was told we’d still be fighting it in 2008, rather than telling us it would be a walk in the park? We were told “Shock and Awe” would quickly lead to the Iraqi public greeting us as liberators. None of that happened. I don’t blame the troops, I blame the Neo-c0n cabal in the Administration who were wrong about everything.

It’s sad to me that so many people want to carry water for Cheney and Rumsfeld. You have a problem with leftists who said the war was a mistake, I have a problem with Rumsfeld saying “You go to war with the army you have” in response to the fact that service members were being killed and maimed in equipment that wasn’t suitable for the job at hand, because he was wrong about how it would play out. I have a problem with those who clap their hands when Cheney criticizes the current Administrations for being cautious and careful as to how we employ our military. We can’t afford to make another colossal miscalculation like that again. So, yeah, Cheney apologists be damned, it is actually patriotic to point that out that he was wrong.

@Tom:

When you imply that any criticism of Kyle, or should I say his factual depiction in the film, is “bashing” or worse, you are placing him on a level beyond reproach.

The criticism wasn’t directed toward his factual depiction in the film. I haven’t seen it so I can’t even comment on that aspect. The criticism was directed towards those who have been bashing Kyle from day one, i.e. pre-film as well as those who are still bashing him. Bottom line is that despite whatever shortcomings he had as a person, and we ALL have them, he saved a lot of American lives. I will go to bat for him whenever someone demeans him or his service.

For many Americans – and I count myself amongst them – one of the biggest considerations when weighing the pros and cons of any decision to use military force is the cost to those who serve.

And that’s the way it should be. My own personal belief is that Wilson’s decision to get us into WWI was probably the biggest foreign policy mistake in U.S. history. However, once Americans are in harm’s way, I believe they deserve 100% support. We didn’t have it not that I feel we were singled out. They didn’t have it in VN, Korea, or a host of other wars going back to The War of 1812 so it was expected.

But the facts are that every claim made by the Administration as to how the war would play out turned out to be disastrously off-base, and that certainly made me reevaluate my support for the Administrations’ claims as to how and why we went there, but not for my feelings regarding the men and women carrying out the mission.

Word has provided numerous pieces of evidence showing the claims weren’t as far off base as some claim. Pick up a copy of Robison’s, Both In One Trench. He debunks the myths as well and uses documents that were recovered from Iraq to back his claims up. That’s original source material not someone’s opinion. In some ways, the Bush administration actually underestimated the threat. You were not wrong in your original support for the war. Those of us who post here are well aware that WMD wasn’t the only reason we went to Iraq and stated so numerous times. Even without the WMD issue, I felt Saddam had to go especially in a post 9/11 world.

We were told “Shock and Awe” would quickly lead to the Iraqi public greeting us as liberators. None of that happened.

That depends on what part of the country you were in. In the pro-Saddam areas we were looked down upon. In other areas, we most certainly were looked upon as liberators. I had a very positive experience with most Iraqi’s which is why I don’t bash all Muslims only the radical ones.

I have a problem with Rumsfeld saying “You go to war with the army you have”

Then with the possible exception of the Gulf War, you would have a problem with the way every POTUS sent us to war because like it or not and as harsh as it may seem, his statement was sad but true. For example, check out how ill equipped our military was upon our entrance into WWII or Korea. We went to war with outdated equipment and relatively ill trained troops. Google and read about Task Force Smith or the casualty counts for the National Guard units that were the first to go into Korea. It’s one of the reasons why we “righties” criticized Obama for his defense cutbacks. It’s setting the military up for more of the same. You prepare for war during peace.

@Rich Wheeler: A Chicken Hawk wraps himself tightly in an American Flag, loudly singing The Star Spangled Banner, while desperately seeking a shelter where he and his draft age progeny(if applicable) can hide from the military recruiters. D.C. and some right wing politicians often come to mind.
Tom GREAT JOB in your #25. How ya doing in that massive Nor’easter?

@another+vet:

However, once Americans are in harm’s way, I believe they deserve 100% support. We didn’t have it not that I feel we were singled out. They didn’t have it in VN, Korea, or a host of other wars going back to The War of 1812 so it was expected.

I’m sorry you feel that way. If you have personally experienced any disrespect for your service, I think that’s reprehensible. I am very proud of the military history in my family and I would never stand to hear any disrespect or denigration toward those who fight our wars. You deserve the same respect as anyone who fought with Washington or Patton, and I mean that. My feelings about Cheney and Rumsfeld are entirely separate from my regard for the troops. I hope you can understand.

Then with the possible exception of the Gulf War, you would have a problem with the way every POTUS sent us to war because like it or not and as harsh as it may seem, his statement was sad but true. For example, check out how ill equipped our military was upon our entrance into WWII or Korea. We went to war with outdated equipment and relatively ill trained troops. Google and read about Task Force Smith or the casualty counts for the National Guard units that were the first to go into Korea.

That shouldn’t be good enough for us. No other country in the world spends as much on defense, in total or as a function of GNP, and it’s not even close. So sending our men and women into a war unprepared, at least in the last several decades since we’ve become the word’s dominate economy and military, is a failure of leadership. It’s not fate.

It’s one of the reasons why we “righties” criticized Obama for his defense cutbacks. It’s setting the military up for more of the same. You prepare for war during peace.

I fail to see how Obama should be held accountable for hypothetical future failures through alleged lack of funding, while Rumsfeld is given a pass because “that’s the way it always is”.

@Rich Wheeler:

How ya doing in that massive Nor’easter?

To be honest, I love watching a good storm. And being stuck inside did give me a chance to catch up with my friends on FA, so that’s the positive. The shoveling was pretty brutal though, and it’s not done. These bones are feeling mighty achy. This might be my last year without a snow blower. Or maybe I should move to California? Thanks for asking, Rich!

@another+vet:

How would you feel if a veteran’s service was denigrated by someone from the far right? I ask because I’ve seen it many times on this very blog. Rich knows what I’m referring to. I don’t recall any conservative jumping to the defense of the injured party, although Rich might know better.

@Tom:

My feelings about Cheney and Rumsfeld are entirely separate from my regard for the troops. I hope you can understand.

I understand that. How do you feel about Clinton sending us into harm’s way despite having gotten numerous draft deferments? There were plenty of Democrats who voted for war who never served either. It goes both ways. Given the dwindling number of Vets, presidents and congressional members voting to send Americans into harm’s way despite never having served will become the norm.

So sending our men and women into a war unprepared, at least in the last several decades since we’ve become the word’s dominate economy and military, is a failure of leadership.

Big time failure of leadership. As stated before, you prepare for war during times of peace. Keep in mind, in some cases it isn’t just the pols who failed. As Army Chief of Staff, Shinseki focused on getting us black berets instead of body armor. He deserved to be booted. His tenure as head of the VA was similarly misguided.

I fail to see how Obama should be held accountable for hypothetical future failures through alleged lack of funding, while Rumsfeld is given a pass because “that’s the way it always is”.

The failures are already manifesting themselves. Look at how much territory is controlled by terrorist groups and their backers now as opposed to when he assumed office. Libya, a good chunk of Syria and Iraq, Yemen, and they are waiting in the wings for us to beat feet out of Afghanistan. Contrary to the SOTU speech, the world is far more dangerous now than it was a few years ago. I receive a retirement newsletter every month from the Army and the current Chief of Staff is very concerned about the cutbacks and how it is having an adverse effect on readiness. Just as Rumsfeld was misguided when he decided to cut back and reorganize during wartime, so is Obama.

@Tom: No one’s service should be bashed by anyone unless of course we are talking about the likes of Bergdahl. As for someone like Kerry, he opened himself up by what he did to the VN Vets after he came back. As for Rich ebing bashed by those on the right on this site, my service has been bashed by those on the left before on this web site as well just as CJ Grisham’s was multiple times so I know how he feels.

@Wordsmith:

I’ve heard it expressed by some soldiers that they didn’t feel supported when their mission wasn’t being supported; or when it felt undermined by the manner in which the mission was criticized. Different people on all sides feel differently. There is no single voice that speaks for all.

That all sounds reasonable, but as someone who employed a Michael Moore tweet to characterize the reaction of “the left” regarding the subject at hand, I’ve gotta say, I’m having a hard time buying your broadmindedness. That card that criticizing the Bush administration’s gross incompetence is akin to criticizing the troops is getting a little threadbare, even for the Flopping Aces deck. Try playing a hand without it.

There were some things that we feared would happen, but didn’t occur, thanks to the manner in which OIF was prosecuted in the initial phase of the war that saw a streamlined military and a quick sprint into Baghdad that toppled Saddam’s government in record time.

Good luck proving that hypothetical. There’s also the hypothetical where we don’t invade and thousands of Americans who died are still alive (and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis), and trillions of dollars are still in the US treasury, and our standing in the world is quite a bit different. Can you imagine a strategy between the status quo and full on invasion that might have been more of a net victory (less of a net loss)?

So should every war be predicated on a timetable complete with expiration date?

Well, obviously not, but it would be nice to know beforehand if a war is going to be the longest in US history (edit: sorry, the longest is the other Bush war). This was not existential. This was not WWII. Forget the American people, forget Congress, George Bush himself would have never in a million years signed off on a never-ending multi-trillion dollar war with no clear outcome. But there has been no evidence to surface that I’m aware of showing that this war was absolutely necessary. So we were oversold on the benefit and undersold on the cost. Whom should I blame for that?

IEDs have been responsible for about half to 2/3rds of our casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ok, who in our military should be held accountable for sending our armed forces into war, fight an insurgency, and not be prepared for the lethality of IEDs when this form of attack essentially came into existence at the time,essentially in 2003? Rumsfeld? Really? He should have foreseen and took measures against IEDs? Magically sped up production of armored MRAPs and innovations against the IED?

Rumsfeld thought the war would be won in the air and that Iraqis would be running to gratefully surrender to the first American they met, so I doubt he thought twice about. But his lack of omniscience isn’t the problem; his frankly dickish and cavalier response is: the Americans sent over on his flawed battle plan deserved better than his hubristic arrogance. And it enraged me then and it still does to this day. In the real world, no one on Earth could do their jobs as poorly, and tragically, as Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld did, in terms of their planning and prognostications regarding Iraq, and not be wearing a barrel, but they they are lucky guys, I guess, to have so many supporters to this day.

@Wordsmith:

“I talked to the general coming out here about the pace at which the vehicles are being armored. They have been brought from all over the world, wherever they’re not needed, to a place where they are needed. I’m told that they are being … I think it’s something like 400 a month are being done. And it’s essentially a matter of physics. It isn’t a matter of money. It isn’t a matter, on the part of the Army, of desire. It’s a matter of production and capability of doing it.

Humvee makers dispute Rumsfeld remarks
More armored vehicles could readily be built, two companies say

WASHINGTON — The manufacturer of Humvees for the U.S. military and the company that adds armor to the utility vehicles are not running near production capacity and are making all that the Pentagon has requested, spokesmen for both companies said.

“If they call and say, ‘You know, we really want more,’ we’ll get it done,” said Lee Woodward, a spokesman for AM General, the Indiana company that makes Humvees and the civilian Hummer versions.

At O’Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt, the Ohio firm that turns specially designed Humvees into fully armored vehicles at a cost of about $70,000 each, spokesman Michael Fox said they, too, can provide more if the government wants them.

@Rich Wheeler:

I’ve got him seeded 8th in a field of at least 14.–Behind Bush, Romney, Paul, Kasich, Huckabee, Walker, Rubio—leading–Christie, Carson, Haley(my sleeper), Cruz, Pence, Huntsman—–field horse Sarah

Sarah’s not running. She’s a celebrity now and enjoys being a pain in the side of lefties.
I don’t want another senator. Bush and Romney have name recognition for sure, but it’s too soon to really start setting up the field. Just this past week, Walker probably propelled himself way up. Perry has just been making some speeches, but I feel a breakout coming.
I think Romney will drop out, even though he says he’s not really in yet. Bush will run in first place for a little while. Walker is going to shoot to number 2 quickly. I don’t see Cruz holding on long, he has some good ideas but I believe he will jump in with Perry. Rubio and Paul will fall behind Perry.
John Kasich is a smart, smart guy. He does not come across very well though. He can seem eccentric.
Carson will hang around for a while, but fade before the year ends. Huckabee has a strong following and depending on the money he raises could stick around for a while, but he’ll never break the top 5. Same with Christie, Pence, and Huntsman. I don’t think Haley will run.
I think you’ll see Bush, Perry, Paul, and Rubio emerge as the top four. But there is a sleeper that could through a wrench into all of that and it’s Susana Martinez.

@Aqua: Thanks Aqua. It is a little early–but the worm is up and at em and the scramble for much needed money is underway.
I see you have Walker quickly jumping to two but then dropping out of contention.?? Would you agree he is the favorite of the Conservative wing?
Martinez– a woman and an Hispanic. Good start–I’ll watch her.
From a strictly political angle–“AS Ohio goes so goes the country”-Gov. Kasich could well be the last person standing in a grueling Primary.
Dem side My hope is HRC doesn’t run– health reasons given.
Jim Webb for POTUS.

@Tom:

Would the American people have supported this war if we were told it was going to cost Six Trillion Dollars, which is 100 times what the Bush Administration claimed?

Where did you arrive at this figure? Sources please along with what they based their numbers on. Also, provide the source where the Bush administration claimed the war was only going to cost $60 billion. Here is what was actually said. Whomever you got your information from obviously read only what they wanted to. I don’t understand what part of, “it’s impossible to estimate at this time” or that “the figure did not include costs such as U.S. peacekeeping efforts, foreign assistance or loan forgiveness, or the economic impact should an oil crisis ensue ” is so hard to understand.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/01/sproject.irq.war.cost/

Two sources for how much Iraq cost. One on the low end, one on the high end. One conservative, one liberal. Chances are the actual costs are somewhere in between. Neither come close to $6 trillion. As a side note, the liberal one has the total cost in lives as well. You’ll notice that those figures are also substantially lower than the grossly inflated numbers put out there by other anti-war groups. I’ve seen estimates of well over a million.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933935.html

https://news.brown.edu/articles/2013/03/warcosts

@Aqua: Talking about Walker’s bump from his Iowa speech—did you hear Palins?–my God!!

@Tom: but true!

@another vet: Liberals do not need facts. They just mindlessly believe the quotes of their leaders. You are just wasting your time trying to show liberals the facts. You would be much more productive cleaning up the dog doo in your yard!

@Rich Wheeler:

I see you have Walker quickly jumping to two but then dropping out of contention.?? Would you agree he is the favorite of the Conservative wing?

I think a lot of conservatives are split right now. Hard conservatives (social and fiscal) are probably looking at Cruz.
States rights conservatives are probably split between Perry and Walker, but I lean more towards Perry.

From a strictly political angle–“AS Ohio goes so goes the country”-Gov. Kasich could well be the last person

VP, maybe high ranking cabinet, most likely Treasury? I don’t think he’s going to make it through the debates. Just a feeling.

@Rich Wheeler:

Talking about Walker’s bump from his Iowa speech—did you hear Palins?–my God!!

She has been mercilessly vilified by the left for a very long time. I think it has left her very bitter. I’ll be the first to say she took the easy way out. A reality show and the talk circuit have made her a celebrity and no longer a viable politician.

@another vet:
One thing I apologize for not making clear is that the number I used is a combined Afghanistan and Iraq amount.

The $6B is from here

Charts: Bush Lowballed Us on Iraq by $6 Trillion

based upon this: http://costsofwar.org/

It’s important to point out that this number includes interest, but doesn’t include many other related future costs.

And obviously, we’re only discussing economic cost here.

The administration estimate is here:

The administration’s top budget official estimated today that the cost of a war with Iraq could be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion, a figure that is well below earlier estimates from White House officials.

So the $6 trillion figure is over 53 years and includes Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa. The study did not include the raw numbers that they based their estimates on nor did they provide links to where the figures came from only that the numbers were “estimated using Solow model-to-model feedbacks from deficit-financed government defense spending into current GDP, the capital stock, and interest rates. The severity of the burden of war-related interest payments will depend on many factors, not least, the overall future health of the US economy, interest rates, government fiscal policy, and national saving.” In other words, they don’t know for sure. “Models” are subject to human biases as witnessed by the ones used for AGW. I also read the backgrounds of those who prepared the report. Obviously they are part of the anti war crowd so there is a definite bias here that needs to be taken into account. Biases of the authors always need to be considered when evaluating reports or studies regardless of whether they are conservative or liberal.

As for the NYT, compare what they wrote to the CNN article that I posted. The CNN article is the later of the two articles and it is clearly stated in there that the war costs couldn’t be estimated and that the $60 billion figure did not include peacekeeping etc. which is where the bulk of the costs occurred. Perhaps the NYT left that part out. Regardless, it was superseded by the CNN report.

@another vet:

Well thank you for the clarifications. My intention certainly wasn’t to get into a debate about hard numbers, but to make a point about how the administration portrayed the challenges of Iraq versus the reality. Unless you can point to evidence that the administration accurately portrayed the future costs, or data showing the future costs were well south of 1 Trillion Plus, i think my point stands.

In fact, I think what I’m driving at nicely ties into the theme of this post. The detachment of the vast majority of the American public to the military makes it that much easier to garner public approval disinterest in how the military is used. If you sell a war as something that won’t impact the average American’s life – “we’re gonna go kick Saddam’s ass, feel better about this whole 9/11 thing, and be home for Christmas” – you’ve successfully played to the sizable portion of the American public that’s tuned out, or who only care about things that directly impact their lives. Remember, at the time it was easy for people to imagine a second Gulf War playing out on CNN like a video game in a matter of weeks. The crucial differences regarding the strategies and the goals were easy to miss. I think it’s fair to say that when people have skin in the game, their attention is more focused, the bar is raised higher, and vice versa. This wasn’t WWII, with a draft and universal sacrifice and rationing. This was (supposedly) a slam dunk, nothing to worry about. The debate surrounding the necessity of going into Iraq is separate from my my contention that the administration spectacularly failed in accurately articulating to the American public what we were getting ourselves into. Which of course was fortunate for the pro-invasion crowd, because there’s simply no chance in hell that the American public and Congress would have authorized the war knowing the way it would play out. I don’t claim that was deception, (although there is plenty of reason to question just how much pressure was put upon the intelligence community to come up with the right actionable data). I think in their hubris, they honestly didn’t have a clue.

@Aqua: & Rich,

The coming GOP debates have the potential to be some of the most fascinating political debates ever, if they get the field right. Cruz, Paul, Walker, Perry, Rubio, Bush and/or Romney: these guys really represent a broad range of conservative opinion, and I for one would love to hear them go at it. Of course the issue is how many loons they let in and who they are. As we saw in 2012, it’s easy for something like this to become a circus, with everyone feeling pressure to play to the extreme base. Who loves the flag the most? Who goes to Church every day? To me, none of that stuff is interesting. If it descend into farce again, I can certainly go with it as entertainment, but this time I’m actually hoping for a serious debate, based upon the potential of the field.

@Tom: I think the six trillion estimate for GWOT (not Iraq) over 53 years is high but not too far off. I’ll be long dead by then so I’ll have no way of knowing how accurate it was.

As for the selling of wars, the majority of the American public is disengaged be it war or anything else. People live in their little shells now. My 15 year old nephew’s geography teacher had a class devoted to 9/11 complete with film footage etc. My nephew was very distraught about it and said out of the whole class only a few other students were interested. That is a reflection on the parents and thus the times we live in. People just don’t give a shit as long as it doesn’t personally affect them to the point where it has a noticeable effect on their daily rituals.