Home » Iraq

The Cost of Retreat

24 August 2007 No Comment

At the crux of the cut and run democrat’s argument for retreat in Iraq is that George Bush got us into this terrible mess and well by god, let’s forget the whole thing and come home. They of course could care less about the troops, this is all political and designed for nothing else except to regain power in 2008 by reliving their “glory days” of Vietnam. I have said again and again that this strategy will cause them to end up in the political wilderness just as we are seeing now in their dismal poll numbers now.

Yet not all Democrats are that politically suicidal. Joe Lieberman isn’t and neither is Rep. Brian Baird, who provides an honest assessment in this opinion piece. While I disagree with the assertion that the invasion was a mistake or that the entirety of the aftermath was FUBAR, he does make the good and honest point that we simply have to compete the job and not run away in shame.

Good read.

No Comment »

  • kathie said:

    The dems want the war over because the cost is in the way of their socialist AGENDA. They think turning the US into Europe is the kind way to go. Notice, Europe has no MILITARY to speak of.

    # 24 August 2007 at 9:37 am
  • Paul said:

    I don’t understand what you mean, the EU has largest army in the world after China (which has about 7 million personnel), with 3.25 million personnel. They have more aircraft than anyone other than the US and the world’s second largest navy.

    After the US, the EU probably has the second most powerful military in the world.

    # 24 August 2007 at 11:27 am
  • Neo said:

    It’s been just shy of 1/3 of a centruy since the Viet Nam Conflict ended. Meaning that most folks under 40 don’t have any direct knowledge of the events.

    The Viet Nam reference by President Bush may be a double-edged sword, but for Democrats all that is left is the glory of marching in the street (or dreaming of doing it). A return to the hard facts of the conflict and it’s aftermath is very much unwelcome.

    # 24 August 2007 at 4:18 pm
  • DubiousD said:

    Paul, can you primary source that 3.25 million personnel figure for the EU? That’s fascinating if true.

    # 24 August 2007 at 11:25 pm
  • kathie said:

    Paul…….where are the 3.25 million Peace Keepers?

    # 25 August 2007 at 8:03 am
  • Paul said:

    DubiousD, it’s not an exact figure, merely the total military personnel of several EU nations. The actual figure is probably much higher.

    UK: 250,000 personnel
    France: 460,450
    Germany: 683,150
    Italy: 438,800
    Spain: 233,300
    Greece: 179,000
    Sweden: 500,000
    Poland: 295,500

    That is just the 8 largest, there are of course another 19 nations in the EU.

    # 25 August 2007 at 8:31 am
  • Paul said:

    kathie, I don’t understand the question. 4.5% of troops currently on peacekeeping missions are from the EU. The US accounts for less than 1%.

    The United States is ranked 41st in the world for providing UN peacekeepers, right behind Togo and Rwanda with just 321 troops/police currently on UN peacekeeping duties.

    The question could be, where are the USA’s 2.4 million peacekeepers?

    # 25 August 2007 at 8:39 am
  • DubiousD said:

    Paul, first of all, the total number of US military personnel is 1.4 million, not 2.4 million.

    Secondly, the military employs something known as “rotations”. Soldiers deployed abroad are allowed to come home now and then, even those serving in Iraq. The actual number of US soldiers deployed in the world right now is somewhere in the 500,000 range.

    That being said, your numbers for EU “peacekeepers” is probably off too. Even if Sweden did have an armed force total of 500,000, it would be extremely unlikely that all 500,000 would be sent abroad at the same time. In fact, it would be logistically impossible. A better guess would be that only a fraction of Swedes are currently on patrols in any theater right now. The rest are probably stationed stateside.

    # 25 August 2007 at 10:15 am
  • Paul said:

    DubiousD, I think that you have misunderstood me. I didn’t say that the EU has 3.25 million peacekeepers. I was responding to kathie’s point that “Europe has no MILITARY to speak of.”

    My point was that the EU currently has a very large military, in excess of 3.25 million.

    The US has 1.4 million front-line troops but 2.4 active military personnel, which includes navy and air force etc. The figures I quoted were for active military personnel.

    Please don’t confuse soldiers deployed abroad with peace keepers, they are not the same. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan are UN peacekeeping missions.

    Even before 9/11 the US and the EU accounted for very few peacekeepers (the US just 885 in Dec 2000, slightly more than Zambia). It has long been a criticism that most UN peace keeping duties are performed by the poor nations, such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ghana, Jordan and Kenya.

    # 25 August 2007 at 12:44 pm

Leave your response!

You must be logged in to post a comment.