Sometimes I hate being right
 

I think you all know where I stand politically. Supporter of Bush in his Iraq efforts, but not interested in seeing us go anywhere else. That said, you can understand why I wish I wasn't right about this.

A little background. Around the time we were gearing up for Iraq, my buddy told me about something his son said. Now, my buddy, let's call him J., is divorced and his ex-hosebeast is married to a military guy. So anyway, one day, while J's kids were visiting, his son asks him, "Daddy, why do we hate Syria?" This is because his stepdad was ALREADY studying maps of Syria. This is why I've been saying for a few months now, "watch, we're going to Syria next."

What to my wondering eyes should appear this evening but the headline "Tension Rises between Syria, U.S."

Now, I want our military to have the funds it needs to do a good job in Iraq. Really, I do. But I cannot support Bush's current request for fundage, because I *know* what they're going to be used for. Enough is enough. We saved the Iraqis, now let's get them going and get the hell outta the middle east already! Remember Georgie, we repubs are for LOW TAXES as well!

Grr...

Fox News is already talking up the importance of taking out Syria, Iran and North Korea- basically, a get-them-before-they-get-us stance. I don't doubt that these are scary countries and the potential for problems quite high, but surely there are better ways? All this posturing and saber rattling is ridiculous and dangerous. One might also ask where the hell he's going to get the troops to do this? Don't get me wrong- I believe we have the right to defend ourselves against attack, but we simply cannot go around attacking countries because of the threat they pose against us. We haven't got the manpower, and it will ruin this country.

Yeah. As said before, I agreed about Afghanistan and Iraq. But I draw the line there. Anything else is going to put us in unimaginable danger. This must not continue.

I don't get it. You're okay with attacking Iraq, who posed no danger, but you draw the line at Syria and Korea who are PROVEN to be more of a threat than Iraq ever was?

I agree with GD; Syria and Iran along with Korea are much greater threats then Iraq was(hindsight)....however, Iraq was in violation of a cease fire....as far as I know these other countries are not. Like it or not, we may have to wait for one of them to make the first move before attacking :(

Iraq=Saddam=problem

I'm not saying Syria is all that great. But now is sure as heck not the right time for this. If we invade yet another country, we can no longer deny the imperialist label they're sticking on us.

You know, the terrorists are long-range planners (probably because much of their language doesn't even acknowledge the passage of time). I think we're being goaded into something.

Which is why we really will have to wait for them to make the first move before launching in all out attack. Hopefully our saber rattling will convince them to behave.

What bothers me even more is the further straining of U.S. military manpower capability. We already entered Iraq woefully undermanned, which led to many unneeded deaths since the conflict began. If troops are sent into Syria or Iran, not only will those troops not have large enough numbers to properly do their jobs and guarantee their own safety, but troops in Afghanistan and Iraq are going to be left in even worse shape than they are now. This paradox that the Bush administration has created for itself; let's go fight a conflict requiring X number of troops, but only send .5X or .3X so that we don't upset the citizenry too much, is only going to lead to even more unnecessary death and loss.

I was always taught to do the job right, or don’t do it at all. Too bad no-one in Washington can see things through that far ahead.

Which leads us to the possibility of a draft. Those troops have to come from somewhere and recruitment isn't exactly on the rise these days.

Oh wait...never mind...that was just a democratic scare tactic. We have plenty of troops to open a few more fronts on this war, right?

Which is a good, and frightening, point. I supported going into Iraq, but wouldn't have if I had known how it was going to go down. I am wholly against going anywhere else until operations currently being undertaken are drawn to a close and the military can withdraw and regroup. And that's if it is absolutely necessary to go anywhere else.

But a draft even at this point is totally unwarranted. During the first Gulf War the U.S. sent far more troops than this time. (I'm too tired to look up actual stats right now, but I want to say it was 450,000 then, as opposed to 150,000 or 200,000 now? I'll check tomorrow.) Yet there was no draft then. I'm convinced that this current problem has arisen because politicians again (as during Vietnam) fancy themselves war strategists, instead of leaving that job to the professionals, which is a huge policy mistake and a very costly and dangerous lesson to have to learn again.