Sunday, September 25, 2005

A soldier speaks to protesters...

CNN covers the anti-war protesters.

And a soldier answers from Iraq:
The battlefield this weekend will be on the homefront. The only thing that truly concerns me is that the seditionist groups will succeed in causing the American people to lose their will and the enemy will win politically the victory we have denied them militarily.

Let there be no mistake: we are winning here. Morale is outstanding and we are successfully taking the fight to the enemy. You will see a successful referendum in less than 3 weeks and a successfull election in less than 3 months. I see the positive resuts of our actions everyday. The MSM ignores or denigrates almost every piece of positive news, exaggerates every negative and makes the enemy and his actions out to be more than they are.

They absolutely cannot defeat us militarily and have no strategic vision except the destruction of all who oppose them. A strategy based on such a negative is doomed to fail, unless we cut and run. That is the enemy's only chance to win. The biggest threat we face is a determined enemy who will not quit because, like the Vietnamese they see the possibility of victory because of a perceived willingness to quit at home.

You all are the ones who can help us out here by countering the enemy within. I've said it several times before: this war will be won or lost on the homefront, and the fact that there are so many of our so-called fellow citizens determined to defeat us scares me. You are the ones who can keep history from being repeated and you can help us by not allowing the anti-American crowd to help the enemy snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

Some very poignant comments about how the same kind of seditionists helped the Communists succeed in Vietnam clearly proves the significance of what you are doing: " North Vietnamese Col. Bui Tin, who served under Gen. (Nguyen) Giap on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army, received South Vietnam's unconditional surrender on April 30, 1975.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal after his retirement, Col. Tin explicitly credited leaders of the U.S. anti-war movement, saying they were "essential to our strategy."

"Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9AM to follow the growth of the antiwar movement," Col. Tin told the Journal.

Visits to Hanoi by … anti-war allies Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and others, he said, "gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses."

"We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war," the North Vietnamese military man explained.

"Through dissent and protest [America] lost the ability to mobilize a will to win," Col. Tin concluded. "

Thanks for taking the time to help us out. You are the ones who clearly support the troops... because you support our mission. You may not appreciate the role you will play in helping to win this fight. But I do.

Thanks again.


At Sunday, 25 September, 2005, Anonymous Inquisitor said...

The term 'seditionist' is illogically used.

Sedition is only possible where the people accused of sedition are plotting to overthrow or rebel against an authority which is deemed as legitimate.

However, insofar as the legitimacy of an authority is dependent on the authority being a government OF the people, the charge of 'sedition' implies a people in revolt against themselves. Since, the people, via the government, are the legitimate authority, this transforms 'sedition' into little more than Critical Introspection.

At Sunday, 25 September, 2005, Blogger GrenfellHunt said...

I agree that the soldier's use of the term "sedition" is too strong. But his critical analysis of the war is excellent. As our military friends over at Mudville Gazette put it: "The reader will kindly forgive any tendency to rough language or behavior on the part of the site owner. Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

At Sunday, 25 September, 2005, Blogger Viki Anderson said...

Over 150,000 people marched to Washington to protest Bush's incompetent decision to go to war with Iraq. By the way, they also protested against Hillary Clinton outside her offices to protest that she voted initially to give Bush the power to go to war. She needs to rectify that.

The fact is, this is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. It is an American issue. We went to war with a country based on lies.
We allowed factual information to be ignored in our knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 that would have discredited the information about WMD.

Cindy Sheehan is NOT against our troops! The group that visited with the message that "Cindy doesn't speak for me" just misunderstands Cindy's motives. Cindy does NOT call our troops war mongers.

Cindy is 100% behind our troops in her message "They lied...Our troops died". She wants those who lied or ignored facts before we went to war in Iraq to be held accountable for getting it wrong and hasty military decisions that put our troops in harms way. She wants people to know that these troops did not have to die.

She wants those who lied or ignored the truth and took our country to war in a nation that did not attack us to be accountable for misleading our nation. And although our troops are most honorable and doing a very tough job that in almost every way is stacked against them, it was wrong of our president to use their lives in a war with Iraq that should never have been.

She hears the President saying over and over that her son and others who have died, died for a noble cause.

The trouble is, that observation by the President rang very hollow for Cindy and other parents and spouses.

She simply asks the President to explain what that noble cause was...exactly.

I honestly do not think he is capable of answering her...exactly.

You see, it is hard to keep track of the number of reasons President Bush has floated as each of his previous reasons have proven to be false or misleading. The reasons we are in Iraq have proven to be ever changing as our administration constantly changes the music and dances on to the next reason. First it was WMD, then it was to rid the country of a dictator, then it was to build the Iraqi people a democratic government, and to protect our(?) freedoms by installing a supposed stable Democratic nation into the Middle East.

This last reason is at best a gamble. If Iraq is truly a Democratic nation, they have the right to choose a destiny that may not necessarily be in the best interest of the United States. Or does President Bush truly think we can impress the Iraqis and their Middle East neighbors by propping up a psuedo-Democratic government while keeping our troops in Iraq indefinitely.

Think back to that fateful vote in our government that allowed our President to attack Iraq. If the question on the floor had been "Shall the United States of America attack Iraq to rid the Iraqi people of a tyrant dictator and give them a Democratic government because it is a nobel cause?" Who honestly believes that the vote would have passed?

Cindy Sheehan knows first hand the pain of losing her son who died thinking his President had sent him on a noble cause. She honors her son Casey by making sure that those we elect to lead our government make decisions based on truth and that the "noble cause" he died for is not simply a personal or corporate agenda of those who stand to financially gain from having access to profitable ventures in Iraq.

I think she deserves an honest answer when she asks the President to explain what noble cause...exactly?

At Sunday, 25 September, 2005, Blogger GrenfellHunt said...

Dear Viki:

1. I think establishing democracy and defeating terrorism is a noble cause. And it's puzzling to me that any one would be in doubt that this is the purpose of our presence in Iraq. Certainly the troops are in no doubt about it--which is why, as our soldier notes, morale is high there.
2. Claims that the war in Iraq were based on "lies" have been discredited long ago. If you have an example of a "lie" that President Bush told, it would be good to cite it.
3. Whatever the origins of the war, to withdraw now and risk handing the country over the terrorists would be a disaster of the first magnitude. The key point of our soldier's letter is to focus on the fact that protests like this weekend's help the enemy and promote more terrorism in Iraq and around the world. That many of these protestors are well-intentioned doesn't change the consequences of their actions.


At Sunday, 25 September, 2005, Blogger GrenfellHunt said...

Dear Viki:

PS: I dropped by your webpage--your pooch is adorable!

At Monday, 26 September, 2005, Anonymous Inquisitor said...

"I think establishing democracy and defeating terrorism is a noble cause. And it's puzzling to me that any one would be in doubt that this is the purpose of our presence in Iraq."

Establishing 'democracy' and 'defeating terrorism' is a noble cause rendered ignoble my a prior failure to objectively define democracy and terrorism.

Virtue is compromised when it is contextualised within a milieu of compromised Virtue.

The Greatest of Evil finds it previous incubatory refuge in that perceived to be the Greatest of Virtues.

At Monday, 26 September, 2005, Blogger GrenfellHunt said...

I think the 8 million Iraqis voting on 20 January 2005 would--for a start--be a good definition of democracy. And the suicide bombers trying to kill these voters would be a good definition of terrorism.

Our actions here in the US will be central to whether democracy succeeds or fails. As the soldier in the post puts it: the terrorists can't win militarily; they can only win if the American people choose to abandon a new democracy at its hour of maximum danger. I believe the strongly that the moral choice is to stand by democracy.



Post a Comment

<< Home