OK...so the troops are going home now...so what?

[Ken Burch]

It's too late to really matter...since he pretty much kept them there as long as McCain would have.

Almost three years...and nothing at all to show for it.

He should have walked the walk and brought 'em home 1/20/09. THAT would have meant something. THAT would have had value.
It doesn't mean anything now.

I mean...I'm glad the troops are getting out of there, but it isn't a change from what the other guys would have done. Or LBJ or Scoop Jackson.

No one has any right to ask us to celebrate this.

[BeyondGeography]

1. That's probably not what they're saying

Just a guess.

[Harmony Blue]

2. I don't think it is too late

what matters is what is happening.

With McCain, the U.S. would still be in Iraq and have troops on the ground in Libya. A McCain presidency makes my skin crawl.

[lillypaddle]

3. too late to really matter?

Tell that to the families who will be waiting with open arms.

WTH is the matter with you?

[Ken Burch]

9. And those families had to wait another three years for NO reason.

Their loved ones have been endangered since Jan 2009 for no justification at all.

(...And I SAID I was glad the troops were going home...)

They were kept in Iraq just to make this "progressive" administration look "tough". There was no other justification. While there was little if any reason for any loss of life in the Middle East prior to Obama coming in, there was none after he took office.

I'm just saying he has no right to expect praise for continuing to keep them there. He was elected by the peace movement and it was a betrayal that he has governed as a hawk.

[KT2000]

13. Agree!

Don't get his response. This will end troops being killed and maimed in Iraq - that is HUGE!

[Ken Burch]

19. Which should have been done in January, 2009

Nothing was gained by keeping them there since then.

[coalition_unwilling]

31. 18-20 returned Iraq and Afghanistan vets commite suicide each day. As

Ron Kovic put it recently, even if vets don't come home in a physical wheelchair, many come home in a wheelchair in their minds. So i would say the vets' physical return to U.S. soil is a good first step, but not the last by any means.

[Youth Uprising]

79. What about the families of the decesead

who would still be alive today had Obama done as he promised during the campaign trail and ended the war as soon as he took office? WTH is the matter with you?

[Ken Burch]

83. Exactly.

Everyone who was killed since January, 2009 died just so this administration could be "inoculated" against charges of dovishness. That's NEVER a good enough reason to put anyone's life in danger.

[deacon]

4. Mccain? Get us OUT of iraq??? lol. n/t

[Ken Burch]

48. I'm not pro-McCain.

I'm anti-status quo and anti-blurring the differences-and anti-"It's ok when OUR guy does it".

Sorry if some people can't handle it when others are consistent in their principles.

[Akoto]

5. Jesus. No matter what he does, a downer post is sure to follow. n/t

[tabatha]

6. I thought McCain wanted them there for decades.

[deacon]

7. Mccain would have had ground troops in iran by now. n/t

[Initech]

14. And Somalia, Yemen, Uganda, you name it..,

[Harmony Blue]

23. McCain for some reason took Bush's foreign policy

approach when he campaigned but with a grander approach, so yes he would have committed more human resources to Iraq for sure.

[Initech]

8. I'm not celebrating.

There was no victory to declare, there were 4000+ lives wasted, trillions spent on this needless conflict - all of which went into the hands of the precious few in the MIC, and all of our social safety nets have been threatened. For what? Fucking nothing! Nothing was gained out of this conflict and America as we know it is never gonna be the same. :argh:

[SammyWinstonJack]

22. +1.

:thumbsup:

[Harmony Blue]

25. I am not celebrating either

but I am relieved that a dark chapter is soon to be to be closed. Time to turn the page and look forward.

[Ken Burch]

34. If all we do is "look forward", this country will never change

To move on, we have to be brutally honest about the past and present and learn how never to repeat what was done.

Again, I'm glad the troops are going home, but it's being done in a way that commits us to perpetrating the status quo. It isn't a clear, dramatic break-which is the only kind of change that ever really works.

[Initech]

52. Exactly - those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. Santayana, not Stalin...Santayana

[Ken Burch]

61. Thanks...That's a relief that it wasn't Stalin.

Didn't sound right-especially since HIS only memorable quote was about omelets.

[Initech]

65. Oops - misquoted.

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. No problem, that just happens to be

a favorite quote of mine.

[Ken Burch]

75. Thanks, nadia.

We disagree on the main point of this OP, but thanks for that.

[Ken Burch]

45. Exactly.

Those troops were kept in this useless situation just so our "progressive" president could say "I'm no damn peacenik".

(and then, after that, his supporters will still DEMAND that the peace movement support him for re-election-probably even in the primaries).

[Initech]

53. If we had the Obama we were promised in 2006...

We would have been out of Iraq months after election and we'd begin arrests and prosecutions of those that put us there in the first place. That is what we should be doing. Once they're in jail then the celebrations can begin.

[Ken Burch]

57. Well put

But this administration has given up on challenging or breaking with any major part of the Johnson/Reagan/BushII foreign policy. It's settled for going along by getting along. And that's the only reason our troops have stayed in Iraq until now.

[TwilightGardener]

10. It matters to a lot of people. Maybe you just don't know any of them.

[Ken Burch]

15. It's good that the troops are going home

There was no good reason at all to keep them there after the swearing in. Nothing in Iraq would be worse, and nothing would be different at all.

The war was already freaking over then.

This was a waste of money, lives, and time. Those troops will never get those years back and they'll be scarred for life. Just so our "progressive" leader could look macho.

[MADem]

27. +39,000, give or take!!! nt

[Ken Burch]

40. I said it was good that the troops are going home.

But they won't ever be the same, now.

Had they come home in January, 2009, they might have recovered. And we'd have sent a clear message to the entire world that "We won't do things like that again". Now, that message can't possibly be sent. It's too late to be historic.

[MADem]

50. Again, with your "gifts" of prognostication!!!

They might not have "recovered" either. What, you work for the VA now?

You are clearly and obviously shifting your argument. Before, you were claiming that there was no difference between what McCain would do and what Obama did. Now, you're playing the "But it would have been better IF" argument--why? Because YOU say so? You know what they say about opinions...everyone's got one.

Unless you're the National Security Advisor posting here, and I'm betting you aren't, you don't "know" and you don't have the full picture. Obama made decisions based on information he had.

Every single servicemember in Iraq VOLUNTEERED for service. They weren't brigade after brigade of poor, pathetic, put-upon draftees. You might want to talk to some of them about their attitudes and perspectives towards their mission before you automatically paint them as a bunch of unwilling Vietnam-style draftees in better battle gear, who somehow need you to cry on their behalf because they're too--what? Dumb? Pathetic? Helpless?-- to speak for themselves. You might be shocked at what they say to you. Many of them have a far better grasp of both the culture and the geopolitical realities of the Middle East/SWAsia region than their formal educations and years on this earth would suggest.

I do find it interesting that so many people have to shit on Obama EVEN when he imparts happy news. I can only imagine the Crapping Contest a President Hillary Clinton would have accrued had she been the one who made it to the show.

Something stinks here. But whatever. Everyone has an opinion....

[Ken Burch]

55. Actually, a lot of people, since the 1980's, have joined the service

because, due to the economic changes that have occurred since Reagan came in(we could call this transition "class cleansing", since it essentially drove working-class people out of large chunks of the country, places where they'd lived all their lives and their families for generations before them)because that was the only chance they had for a job(and, in some cases, the only chance for a college education).

And I wasn't claiming the troops were too dumb, pathetic, or helpless to speak for themselves.

[MADem]

100. And a lot have joined out of family tradition and a sense of national service.

Your point?

[Ken Burch]

106. My point is, the statement that "they volunteered" doesn't necessarily mean

They were down with the whole program. And it doesn't mean that they aren't victims.

[MADem]

109. And it doesn't mean that they were NOT "down with the program." And it doesn't

automatically make them "victims" either.

You'd be surprised at how many people like their work in the military, I suspect.

[pinto]

11. I bet it matters to the 40 some odd thousand troops coming home.

And their families...

[Ken Burch]

17. It isn't a change in how we treat the world.,

It should have happened in January, 2009. Putting those troops in danger since then was pointless. I don't know if they'll ever fit in in civilian life now.

[JoePhilly]

12. The Manufatured Outrage Machine runs 24/7 ... nt

[Ken Burch]

89. There's no such thing as "Manufactured Outrage" among true progressives

Just sincerely felt disgust at hypocrisy and low standards.

[JoePhilly]

101. Every political group has manufactured outrage ... even the "true progressives"

To state otherwise is either (1) an intentional lie, (2) an intentionally disingenuous statement, (3) an incredibly myopic statement, or (4) an incredibly naive statement.

Feel free to pick which one yours is.

[Shagbark Hickory]

16. I think you're probably right about that.

Although he did end combat missions all that stuff a while ago.

[snooper2]

18. Good try but pretty much a fail...you can do better...

Besides, I already predicted your thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2160515&mesg_id=2160553

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Ken Burch]

20. You're just one of the "It's ok when OUR guy does it" crowd

Overseas war isn't something a Democratic administration should do anymore. It isn't ever for the greater good these days.

[snooper2]

26. No, I'm one of the Bush fucked it all up so Obama had to clean it up crowd

[Ken Burch]

32. No clean up was done in the last three years

The Iraqi army was already trained and none of the Iraqi people wanted us there. Obama should have sent in Peace Corps types and focused solely on civilian reconstruction if we had to do anything at all in Iraq.

This is as hollow as it would have been for a Dem president to beat Nixon in '72 and then keep us in Vietnam til October of '75.

[snooper2]

37. If that's what you choose to believe...

[Ken Burch]

62. Clean up is done with civilian aid workers, not troops.

n/t.

[SidDithers]

43. Nailed it...nt

Sid

[MADem]

21. Well, go sulk in the corner, then. I'm betting their families are pleased. They don't need your

approval or permission to celebrate.

You don't know what McCain would have done because you don't have the gift of precognition--for all you know, under President McCain, exhorted on by Vice President Palin, they'd be massing in Iraq and Afghanistan to invade Iran in a pincer move by now.

So you go on--don't celebrate. You're in the minority.

[Ken Burch]

29. There's never any good reason to blur the differences between our party and the Right

on foreign policy. There was almost no support for us staying in Iraq in 2008, and little real support for the escalation in Afghanistan. Obama would have won on a "bring 'em home NOW!" platform.

Keeping any troops in Iraq since 2009 was a total waste. Those people won't recover from losing all those years of their lives just to make our "progressive" president look "tough". Toughness is a bullshit attribute anyway. It can't be used for anything positive anymore.

[Harmony Blue]

33. Yes it was a waste

but it will be corrected.

It doesn't matter if you make a mistake, it is what you do afterwords to correct it. Obama Administration admitted that it was a mistake to stay longer, and are correcting it.

[MADem]

54. Unless you work for the Executive Branch, and are responsible for

making those decisions of the highest order, I'll give your opinion the weight I feel it deserves.

You are free to return the favor.

But stop shifting your argument. You said there was no difference between what McCain would have done and what Obama did.

I countered with a Road To Teheran scenario.

There might have been a Road to Damascus as well.

But see, I don't claim to "know." I don't have a functioning crystal ball, and don't pretend to have one. I do know that many decisions made at the NSA level are not touted in the New York Times, leaky government notwithstanding. Sometimes, we don't find out the true reasons for decisions for years.

[Ken Burch]

59. In your last sentence, you've made the case for defending Wikileaks and freeing Bradley Manning

not the "we just have to trust our leaders" position you meant to defend.

It's time for the secrecy to end. Half the time, our leaders themselves are just guessing, or they've just chosen to follow particular policies for the sake of "looking tough".

[MADem]

99. I haven't made any case of the sort. That's not the topic. Stay on it. NT

[Ken Burch]

107. You made it without REALIZING you made it, then.

Still, it's a start.

We do need to end the Secrecy State.

[MADem]

111. Not at all. You blew the argument, so now you're trying to change the subject.

Frantically.

[Ken Burch]

115. No, I'm responding to a point you made

You said we don't know what the administration knows. I'm saying we SHOULD know...we should be told...and also that we can't assume that what the administration is being told is, in fact, accurate. The generals all wanted to keep the war going indefinitely. We know that Bush was given false intel. It's likely, therefore, that Obama was given even less accurate intel.

It all ties in.

The Secrecy State is part of the problem. All those secrets do is get people killed and keep wars going.

[MADem]

116. Well, in that case, I'm saying you are dead wrong.

Gee, why didn't FDR share with us the details of the ongoing nuclear bomb testing efforts ahead of Hiroshima/Nagasaki? Surely we had a "right" to know!

Gosh, why wasn't D-Day touted in the NYT ahead of the event?

Please. We don't need to know everything contemporaneously. That's not what "transparency in government" means.

Hell, we still haven't been told the truth about JFK's death. I think when Castro dies, though, we might learn a little something.

All that said, you're still off topic.

[Romulox]

24. UGANDA! Um, YEMEN? SOMALIA! Likely some residual "evil doers" in Libya, too! nt

[Robb]

28. I regret that I have but two eyes to roll at this post.

[jpak]

41. LOL!!!!111

:rofl:

:thumbsup:

[DevonRex]

81. I showed it to everybody and got another 10 pairs rolling. And one guy who

asked if that kind of post was typical of this site. I gave him my phone so he could browse and decide for himself.

He's sitting in the corner with his eyes rolling and glazed over right now. I'm afraid to ask what he concluded. But if he plugs in my guitar and starts playing Stairway it's not a good sign.

[Ken Burch]

87. Fine-you and your friends can defend a "progressive" prez carrying on pointless right-wing wars.

Just to "inoculate" themselves from right-wing attack-attack that they'll be getting ANYWAY.

Whatever

[DevonRex]

91. I suggest you take a deep breath and think about what you just wrote.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

30. SOFA in Iraq.

The timeline hasn't changed.

Make of it what you will.

[seaglass]

42. No kidding, the SOFA that Bush signed. We kept to our agreement. n/t

[SidDithers]

35. Haha...nt

Sid

[Capitalocracy]

36. He should've had the troops home and Bush in jail in 2009.

I'm happy this thing is ending (supposedly) now. But it should have ended years ago. It should never have happened in the first place.

[Ken Burch]

46. Thanks. You've expressed it better than I did.

This was just about looking "tough"-and "toughness" no longer serves any purpose in foreign policy.

Nothing at all would have been lost if the troops had come home in January, 2009. Nothing would be different in Iraq-and certainly nothing would be worse.

[Harmony Blue]

49. I can agree with that

and it is very efficiently expressed as well.

[dtexdem]

38. Actually, it is something. Because McCain would likely not have brought them home.

Obama promised to bring them home soon, but didn't. Only by the end of this year.

Any McCain promise to bring them home was a lie -- at least would not have been kept.

[Ken Burch]

51. Nowhere in my OP was I saying we'd have been better off with McCain

Just that it wasn't the decisive change we had the right to expect.

There's way too much that has happened in the last nearly three years that Henry Kissinger probably approves of. And none of it needed to happen.

[MADem]

56. No, you said there would have been no damn difference, and that wasn't even close to true.

Let's not even talk about the Supreme Court.

:scared:

[Ken Burch]

64. McCain wouldn't have got away with keeping them in any longer

(NOT that I'd have ever wanted McCain).

The antiwar movement would have been even larger, and Congress would at aome point have developed a spine and stopped him(especially since we'd likely have GAINED seats in 2010).

The Supreme Court isn't even part of this discussion. I wasn't talking about domestic policy, and Obama didn't have to be hawkish on the Middle East after the election to get the CHANCE to appoint Supreme Court justices.

[MADem]

98. You never know. We can't predict what never happened, can we? nt

[jpak]

39. The wahmbulance is on the way

have no fear

[Harmony Blue]

63. A thread wouldn't be complete without

an anon reference. o.O

[robdogbucky]

44. Don't worry, they're being replaced by mercenaries

at about $1000/day, paid for by you and me and all the other taxpayers that finance the MIC for the benefit of those companies' shareholders. We didn't build that embassy (military headquarters) and multiple bases just for giggles (ongoing occupation).

I guess we can thank a campaign year for such moves. Or maybe pressure fromm the professional left and those dirty fucking hippies.

Wonder what tune Panetta and Paetrus will sing now?




What about Afghanistan?

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. Alas grand a would have kept them there

Until 2016 at least.

[alcibiades_mystery]

66. Ay yay yay

Who would ask you to celebrate anything? It would be like asking a platypus to write a French cookbook.

You don't have the fucking capacity.

[Ken Burch]

67. In January 2009, it would have been progressive and heroic.

Now...it's mundane and it's not a break with the foreign policy status quo.

Glad the troops are coming home, but we all know there was no reason for them to stay after the swearing in.

[Nye Bevan]

68. Don't you remember McCain saying we may be there for 100 years?

You seem to be very negative on this.

[Ken Burch]

72. When he said that, the country thought that electing Obama

would mean a total break with the hawkish foreign policy mindset.

And it's doubtful that McCain would have been able to manage that, even if he'd wanted to. Nixon couldn't keep us in Vietnam after being re-elected in a landslide(and he wanted to keep us there).

It's good that the troops are FINALLY coming home...but, in terms of what could have been, it's hollow in a historic sense. It wasn't a clear break, a statement to the world that things like that wouldn't be done again in THIS administration. And it seems to have been driven more by Obama's fixation with "inoculating" himself from charges of dovishness in time for his re-election campaign-which isn't something that's worth anyone's life.

[GSLevel9]

69. +1... nt

[SidDithers]

77. -2...nt

Sid

[Ken Burch]

84. You can't "bring systems down" while defending the continuation of unjust wars

There can't be a liberal war anymore.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Thrill]

73. Im sure it matters to their families

Everyone doesn't give a shit about political impact

[Ken Burch]

76. I didn't want their families to have to have worried about them for the last three years

I hope these people can get the help they're going to need. They won't come home emotionally unscathed.

[seabeyond]

74. wow. it really doesnt matter what obama does, does it. gonna be the diss. nt

[DevonRex]

78. So by your logic just leave them there forever. OMFG.

That idea is flat out insane.

[Ken Burch]

82. No...bring them home, obviously...but don't act like we're supposed to still think

the overall policy was "progressive". And no one should be calling this a victory for anything.

These troops were there for the last three years for no reason at all.

[spanone]

80. bullshit..

[Ken Burch]

86. You're ok with it happening too late to mean anything?

Of course I'm glad the troops are coming home...but it WASN'T a break with the status quo, and keeping them there 'til now was completely unjustifiable. We should only have had civilian aid workers there after Obama was sworn in.

[Renew Deal]

85. Some people will never be happy.

[Ken Burch]

90. About keeping U.S. troops in harm way for no reason? No, some of us won't.

And the Iraqi people weren't happy about us staying there. The only ones who DID want us there were the South Vietnamese-like "pro-American" puppets we put into place.

[Renew Deal]

93. Or that they are coming home.

If they're there it's bad and if they come home it's bad.

[Ken Burch]

94. I'm relieved for the troops

Outraged that they were kept there this long.

They were put at risk and the chance to make a decisive, historic break is forever lost. It's a victory for the status quo that they were kept there this long. Only the people who oppose us from the right benefited from it.

[Nye Bevan]

103. I'm outraged that it took this long to clean up the mess created by George W Bush

but I give credit to Obama for completing this task.

And I am *very* happy that John "keep them there for 100 years" McCain is not our President.

[Ken Burch]

108. I'm relieved that McCain didn't win, don't get me wrong.

But we shouldn't have to do close readings of this administration's record to be able to say that. And the people voted for a CLEAR break with the Bush Doctrine, which we never got. At most, it's Bush Doctrine Lite-and it's STILL based on the arrogant notion that we have the right to reshape the Middle East to our specifications.

[Swede]

88. Get the shovels,time to move the goal posts.

Again.

[arbusto_baboso]

92. Better late than never.

It's never too late to try to fix a mistake.

[Ken Burch]

95. This doesn't fix it, though.

It's a victory for the "Bush Doctrine" that they were kept there this long, and for political cynicism within this administration. No one's life should ever be put in jeopardy just to "inoculate" a politician from the charge of not being a militarist.

I do wish the troops well. It won't be easy for them.

[quinnox]

96. The Mclame reference kinda ruins your post

I feel you when it comes to the celebrating though, it would be like celebrating that a train wreck is now only smoking instead of being on fire.

However regarding Mclame, no way do I think he would have pulled any troops out, the guy wanted to go to war in Iran too badly.

[Ken Burch]

105. Interesting point. Thanks for posting.

n/t.

[phleshdef]

97. John McCain just completely ruined your little premise.

“Today marks a harmful and sad setback for the United States in the world. I respectfully disagree with the President: this decision will be viewed as a strategic victory for our enemies in the Middle East, especially the Iranian regime, which has worked relentlessly to ensure a full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. It is a consequential failure of both the Obama Administration -- which has been more focused on withdrawing from Iraq than succeeding in Iraq since it came into office -- as well as the Iraqi government.

“I share the desire for all of our troops to come home as quickly as possible. But all of our military commanders with whom I have spoken on my repeated visits to Iraq have told me that U.S. national security interests and the enduring needs of Iraq’s military required a continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq beyond 2011 to safeguard the gains that we and our Iraqi partners have made. I am confident that no U.S. commander of any stature who has served in Iraq recommended the course of action that has now been taken.

“Nearly 4,500 Americans have given their lives for our mission in Iraq. Countless more have been wounded. Through their service and sacrifice, the possibility of a democratic state in the heart of the Middle East has been opened to millions of Iraqis. I fear that all of the gains made possible by these brave Americans in Iraq, at such grave cost, are now at risk.”

http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=27ffb3ca-b648-01cf-c793-2165792b5136

"...since he pretty much kept them there as long as McCain would have."

I expect that you will now be taking that statement back.

[apocalypsehow]

102. Gosh, I'm just so surprised that you would post something like this!

:eyes:

UnRec.

[nadinbrzezinski]

104. Here from grand pa himself

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2162001&mesg_id=2162001

He is predictable, but he means it.

[MADem]

112. Well, that's pretty definitive--kinda fucks up the OP thesis a wee bit, though, I'd say! nt

[Ken Burch]

113. Nixon was stopped from keeping us in Vietnam

And stopped right after winning a landslide re-election victory.

McCain could have been stopped as well.

All it takes is a Congress with a spine.

[Fire Walk With Me]

110. So Occupy.

[onethatcares]

114. we never should have invaded in the first place.

hundreds of thousands of us knew that, hundreds of thousands of us protested against it.

the media showed Cindy Sheehan and a few scattered protests.

I for one am glad to be part of the reason the city of St. Petersburg Florida had to give a section of sidewalk away to developers

to support a failing shopping center.

The thing I worry about most is what are the troops coming home to?

There sure as hell aren't many jobs out here in the sunny U.S. of A.

[fishwax]

117. I doubt McCain would have gotten them out sooner or at the same time

It shouldn't have taken so long. With McCain it would likely have taken longer (if indeed it ever would have happened).

[aikoaiko]

118. Net recommendation: 0 votes (Your vote: -1)

[sad sally]

119. So leaving 5,000 military contractors means the war is over?

But the fact is America’s military efforts in Iraq aren’t coming to an end. They are instead entering a new phase. On January 1, 2012, the State Department will command a hired army of about 5,500 security contractors, all to protect the largest U.S. diplomatic presence anywhere overseas.

The State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security does not have a promising record when it comes to managing its mercenaries. The 2007 Nisour Square shootings by State’s security contractors, in which 17 Iraqi civilians were killed, marked one of the low points of the war. Now, State will be commanding a much larger security presence, the equivalent of a heavy combat brigade. In July, Danger Room exclusively reported that the Department blocked the Congressionally-appointed watchdog for Iraq from acquiring basic information about contractor security operations, such as the contractors’ rules of engagement.

That means no one outside the State Department knows how its contractors will behave as they ferry over 10,000 U.S. State Department employees throughout Iraq — which, in case anyone has forgotten, is still a war zone. Since Iraq wouldn’t grant legal immunity to U.S. troops, it is unlikely to grant it to U.S. contractors, particularly in the heat and anger of an accident resulting in the loss of Iraqi life.

It’s a situation with the potential for diplomatic disaster. And it’s being managed by an organization with no experience running the tight command structure that makes armies cohesive and effective.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/obama-iraq-eternal/?du

[Ken Burch]

120. That's a very good point.

We need a "Contractors Out!" movement now.