Sunday, September 09, 2007

Punditry done wrong

By way of Dave Budge I found this unfortunate post at Montana Pundit. Rarely has a post gotten so much wrong in so little space. I address only three points:

1. "Truth is the democrats [sic] have such disdain and hatred for the military and all who serve, that no matter what the general says it does not matter."

That is shameful and irresponsible and an unforgivable insult to all Democrats who served their country honorably, both in and out of the military. And it is presented, of course, totally without evidence.

2. "It is impossible to support someone when you do not support what they [sic] do."

Dead wrong. Nobody blames the soldiers for the war. They didn't start it. As Americans gradually have soured on the war, their support for the troops has wavered almost not at all.

3. "If we leave now all who have died will have died for nothing."

Wrong militarily, wrong politically, wrong morally. Sending soldiers to die solely because other soldiers have died is always wrong. Soldiers live and die based on decisions by their commanders. Those decisions may be wise, or they may be foolish, but in neither case do soldiers die for nothing. They die for their country. Perpetuating a bad decision in hopes of vindicating the sacrifice of those who already have died guarantees disaster.


jhwygirl said...


Well said.

Jim Larson said...

While the Democrats clearly don't hate the military, when the senate majority leader called Gen. Petraeus incompetent, it showed that he would say just about anything about anyone to get at the president. Mr. Reed is the politician who makes all of the others look bad. The only branch of government currently led competently is the judiciary.

Anonymous said...

Link doesn't work.

Let's not forget that among Republican leadership, there's very little military expereince. Few of them - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, for example - have served. Bush may be the most experienced with his fake service in the National Guard.

6 Generations said...

First, Mr. Larson, Politico reported that story of Reid's calling General Petraeus "incompetent" in conversation with liberal bloggers, according to the Washington Post. Was that Reid's word, exactly? Who knows. When questioned, Reid says he doesn't think Patraeus is incompetent, but he is critical of the commander's being very positive in the past about situations on the ground in Baghdad which proved not to be the case, and he thinks the general is following that misleading pattern in his current report. Voicing such concerns does not make Mr. Reid the worst politician on Capitol Hill.

Secondly, although I was unable to link to the original post to which you are responding, David, I agree with what you write. There are many like that writer at Montana Pundit. They just repeat the same old mouth-frothing idiocy they hear on talk radio. They don't think at all about the words they say. Any parent knows you can "support someone when you do not support what they do."

Anonymous said...

David, what bad decision are you referring to? Enforcing the UN resolutions? Defeating and hanging Saddam Hussein? Overthrowing the taliban, who were harboring Bin Laden? Please elaborate a little.

David said...

I'm not referring to any specific bad decision. I am making a general point. If a commander makes a bad decision, more troops should not be sacrificed just because other troops were lost. These decisions have to be made on their rational merits, not out of a desire to somehow justify other deaths.

Chuck Rightmire said...

Eric: Don't equate overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan with Iraq. We went into Afghanistan with an objective to destroy those who had committed an atrocity against our country and to prevent them from doing so again. We might have accomplished that had we "stayed the course" in that country. We didn't. We abandoned that effort to a puny response by a limited force to go into Iraq where we have committed the bulk of our fighting force. Al Quaida has rebounded and we haven't done anything about that.