Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rascal who wrote (150284)	12/11/2004 10:13:47 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"Public opinion will tip. It may be tipping now." _______________________________ Tipping point Editorial December 11, 2004 timesargus.com Public opinion has yet to reach the tipping point at which outrage over the conduct of the war in Iraq takes command of the public dialogue. Comments by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday could be a tipping point. While meeting with soldiers in Kuwait on Wednesday Rumsfeld opened himself up to questions, and a member of the Tennessee National Guard asked him why soldiers had to rummage through scrap heaps to find metal with which to armor their vehicles. Rumsfeld's answer bespoke not just towering arrogance but contempt for the soldiers he is designated to lead. "You go to war with the Army you have," Rumsfeld said, "not the Army you might want or wish to have." Here's a better answer: You go to war when you are prepared to go to war. You go to war when you have a strategy for winning the war. President Bush and Rumsfeld chose to put American troops in harm's way, not in response to an attack, in which case you go with what you have. They went to war at the time of their choosing, when, one would hope, the American military was ready. In doing so, they had a responsibility to provide American troops with the equipment they needed. The troops in Kuwait cheered when the soldier put that question to Rumsfeld. It was a rare instance when the Bush administration has been confronted with an unscripted truth. Rumsfeld went on to point out that sometimes even armored tanks can be blown up. Duh. He made a comment equally as patronizing when looters were running free in Baghdad. "Stuff happens," he said then. When the rank and file of the U.S. military turns against the war in Iraq, the rest of America will catch on that the Bush administration has perpetrated a vast hoax on the American people. The war in Iraq was an idea hatched in the minds of Bush administration ideologues, rather than a conflict dictated by circumstance. The great danger is that the American public will turn against the war before the people of Iraq have managed to put in place a governmental structure that will survive the departure of the American military. Bloody civil war may be America's legacy to the people of Iraq, and the service men and women who have been forced to run the gauntlet of roadside bombs without sufficient armor may wonder what it was all for. Underlying the Tennessee guardsman's question was dismay at the failed strategy Rumsfeld has brought to the war. He intended to show that the U.S. could conquer Iraq with a small, light force. Instead, the mission has suffered from a shortage of troops and suitable equipment. Of course, Rumsfeld, like Bush, knows whom to blame for those problems. It's the generals. They are the ones who have dictated troop strength — except for the generals who disagreed with Rumsfeld's determination to go with a small force. But it appears that nothing is ever Rumsfeld or Bush's fault. If the Army's vehicles lack armor, that's because they lack armor. If soldiers are dying, hey, stuff happens. Public opinion will tip. It may be tipping now.