If the Iraqis get a vacation, should our military get one too?

[forestal]

The Iraqi Parliament is taking a two month vacation while our military fights and dies for their freedom. Maybe we should take a two month vacation from securing their country at the same time.


Iraqis on Vacation

Monday, April 30, 2007; Page A14

As the mother of an Army Ranger who has just completed a tour in Iraq, I was stunned to read that the Iraqi parliament was scheduled to take a two-month recess ["Baghdad's Fissures and Mistrust Keep Political Goals Out of Reach," front page, April 26].

Our soldiers are having their tours extended to 15 months without a single day off except for a two-week leave. In an ordinary job this would be grueling, but in combat, with the constant threat of suicide bombings and improvised explosive devices, it is difficult beyond words.

Our soldiers are shedding their blood to help a country that is a shambles, and their politicians are taking a two-month vacation! This is a slap in the face to the soldiers and their families, not to mention to the citizens of Iraq.

TRICIA BATES

 

[vraiblonde]

The Iraqi Parliament is taking a two month vacation while our military fights and dies for their freedom. Maybe we should take a two month vacation from securing their country at the same time.

I hate to say it, but I agree with this.

 

[This_person]

The Iraqi Parliament is taking a two month vacation while our military fights and dies for their freedom. Maybe we should take a two month vacation from securing their country at the same time.


Iraqis on Vacation

Monday, April 30, 2007; Page A14

As the mother of an Army Ranger who has just completed a tour in Iraq, I was stunned to read that the Iraqi parliament was scheduled to take a two-month recess ["Baghdad's Fissures and Mistrust Keep Political Goals Out of Reach," front page, April 26].

Our soldiers are having their tours extended to 15 months without a single day off except for a two-week leave. In an ordinary job this would be grueling, but in combat, with the constant threat of suicide bombings and improvised explosive devices, it is difficult beyond words.

Our soldiers are shedding their blood to help a country that is a shambles, and their politicians are taking a two-month vacation! This is a slap in the face to the soldiers and their families, not to mention to the citizens of Iraq.

TRICIA BATES

And everytime Congress goes on recess, our military and, well, hell, why not DC police will go on vacation, too. And, when the county commissioners are not meeting in session, the county cops should take the night off.

Can you find controversy in EVERYTHING?

 

[vraiblonde]

And everytime Congress goes on recess, our military and, well, hell, why not DC police will go on vacation, too. And, when the county commissioners are not meeting in session, the county cops should take the night off.

Wait a minute - that's not the same thing. Why should our military be over their busting their ass when these ham 'n eggers are off on a 2-month vacation? They should be working to get their stupid country together, not slacking off.

 

[This_person]

Wait a minute - that's not the same thing. Why should our military be over their busting their ass when these ham 'n eggers are off on a 2-month vacation? They should be working to get their stupid country together, not slacking off.

It's kind of the same thing. I suspect, since they're now a representative government, that they have local populations to speak with, studies to perform, research to do, etc., just like our Congress does. Their military isn't taking the two months off, their legislative branch just isn't meeting for a couple of months. I suspect (I'm not there either, so I don't know any more than anyone else here) that everything we're doing with training people up to stand up, etc., will continue on with no changes - just like when our legislative branch takes months off at a time. Just because Nancy Polosi isn't there to set up meetings doesn't mean our work isn't getting done. I don't mean to be crude, but give me a break, this is a made up controversy in my opinion.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yep...

Wait a minute - that's not the same thing. Why should our military be over their busting their ass when these ham 'n eggers are off on a 2-month vacation? They should be working to get their stupid country together, not slacking off.

...this is simply unacceptable. Unconscionable.

 

[Larry Gude]

Dude...

It's kind of the same thing. I suspect, since they're now a representative government, that they have local populations to speak with, studies to perform, research to do, etc., just like our Congress does. Their military isn't taking the two months off, their legislative branch just isn't meeting for a couple of months. I suspect (I'm not there either, so I don't know any more than anyone else here) that everything we're doing with training people up to stand up, etc., will continue on with no changes - just like when our legislative branch takes months off at a time. Just because Nancy Polosi isn't there to set up meetings doesn't mean our work isn't getting done. I don't mean to be crude, but give me a break, this is a made up controversy in my opinion.

...they have several main issues that can ONLY be resolved by being in session; sharing oil revenies, what to do with the Baathist legacy and power sharing. IF their people, their armed forces were doing the job, even just the bulk of it, fine, take off all summer. IF they had a basic power sharing agreement in place that Shia and Sunni and Kurd were all working to accept, then fine, take all the time you want. When I'm standing in your backyward with a freaking firehose trying to keep the brush fire from consuming your house, you damn site better not be off to visit the constituents just now.

 

[This_person]

...they have several main issues that can ONLY be resolved by being in session; sharing oil revenies, what to do with the Baathist legacy and power sharing. IF their people, their armed forces were doing the job, even just the bulk of it, fine, take off all summer. IF they had a basic power sharing agreement in place that Shia and Sunni and Kurd were all working to accept, then fine, take all the time you want. When I'm standing in your backyward with a freaking firehose trying to keep the brush fire from consuming your house, you damn site better not be off to visit the constituents just now.

I'm not arguing that it doesn't look bad, it does. A lot of times, though, legislative type work gets done anywhere BUT the floor - back room meetings, cooling off hot heads to be able to work together, etc. I wouldn't suggest it to 'em if they asked me, but I don't see the need to . It's two months. Let's not react in the microwave society mode - instant results and changes. Remember when everyone said "we know this is going to take a llllllllllllloooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggggg time"? A few years isn't a long time to start a country up from scratch, especially when
1. The country helping can't be trusted because they left the new country high and dry before - not to mention the constant bickering about helping now.
2. Other countries are getting involved to make every bit of progress be stymied or actually reversed.
3. Non-country entities (terrorists) are actively making it harder for the new country just to piss off the helping country.

We didn't have half of that, and we weren't up and running quickly. A couple months of not arguing on their parliamentary floor may speed up the issues you're talking about.

 

[Ken King]

Wait a minute - that's not the same thing. Why should our military be over their busting their ass when these ham 'n eggers are off on a 2-month vacation? They should be working to get their stupid country together, not slacking off.

Ham 'n eggers. Priceless

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

I agree with stool also, these guys should be trying to get things together. Seems to me as though we're fighting for a country that still isn't willing to step up.

 

[Pushrod]

I wonder if they have given a reason for the two month planned hiatus? I'm sure they are more aware than us of the problems in their country so it's a decision I'm assuming they wouldn't make lightly.

I agree that with the information I have so far, it doesn't seem like a reasonable decision while their country is still a hot spot of violence. Maybe they think that things have calmed down enough and going in the right direction that they want to project to the world a sense of normalcy? If so they need to reconsider their decision!!

 

[Larry Gude]

That's not...

We didn't have half of that, and we weren't up and running quickly. A couple months of not arguing on their parliamentary floor may speed up the issues you're talking about.

...a fair analogy; we did not have a civil war on our hands. There was not open, lingering combat between those who were loyal to the crown and those who fought as patriots and those who rode the fence.

The Iraqi's have a civil war on their hands; open violence between Shia and Sunni and the majority Shia who hold most of the power are in no hurry to give up anything they don't have to give up to their Sunni 'brothers' or their Kurd fellow countrymen.

What is their motivation? The US is supplying nauseating amounts of money to a nation who has the second largest oil reserves on the freaking planet. The US is supply most of the backbone to put up the image of 'insurgent' fighting.

In the mean time, Iraq could have a half million men in arms patrolling and controlling THEIR country. They don't. Not fairly. Not justly in any event. We can't make them want to. We can't force them to be fair or make compromises of our choosing. We should be letting the Shi'as kill as many Sunni's as they like until the Sunni's quit or leave. We should let these forces act as they need to until these people have common interest.

Again, where is anyone's motivation to come together? Through US presence?

 

[This_person]

...a fair analogy; we did not have a civil war on our hands. There was not open, lingering combat between those who were loyal to the crown and those who fought as patriots and those who rode the fence.

I disagree. The American Revolutionary War was a civil war. Rather than a country united against the British, Americans were divided over whether the colonies should leave the British empire. We know that in every part of the United States, but especially in the South after 1778 (when the British transferred its military operations to this region), Americans fought Americans. Sometimes, American family members fought each other, as fathers sided with the British and sons with the Americans (or visa versa). Historians believe that forty percent of Americans were patriots; twenty percent were Loyalists, who supported the British; and forty percent were neutral, preferring to be left alone during the hostilities. Almost 18,000 Loyalists actually joined the British army and fought against Americans. These conflicts were often extremely violent and bitter.

The Iraqi's have a civil war on their hands; open violence between Shia and Sunni and the majority Shia who hold most of the power are in no hurry to give up anything they don't have to give up to their Sunni 'brothers' or their Kurd fellow countrymen.

Sectarian violence - that rooted in conflict between different sects of a religion - is not new to Iraq (or other countries). Whether or not this constitutes a "civil war" depends entirely on how you define the term. Remember: he who frames the debate, wins the debate.

What is their motivation? The US is supplying nauseating amounts of money to a nation who has the second largest oil reserves on the freaking planet. The US is supply most of the backbone to put up the image of 'insurgent' fighting.

In the mean time, Iraq could have a half million men in arms patrolling and controlling THEIR country. They don't. Not fairly. Not justly in any event. We can't make them want to. We can't force them to be fair or make compromises of our choosing. We should be letting the Shi'as kill as many Sunni's as they like until the Sunni's quit or leave. We should let these forces act as they need to until these people have common interest.

Again, where is anyone's motivation to come together? Through US presence?

I can't argue they have little motivation to do the right thing, other than to get us out of their country. They have huge unemployment, but is it in the US interest to give 50-60% of their countrymen military training (on how we would fight them!)? But, I don't think a two month parliamentary recess will change that any worse. The military there will continue "working" to stand up at the same rate they are now, whether their legislative branch is in session or not. They have a lot of work to do, I agree. They shouldn't go on recess because it looks really bad, I agree. I just can't work up enthusiasm to get upset about it, though. It's a spit in the Bay as far as I'm concerned.

 

[forestal]

Look, the Iraqis REALLY have to get they're crap together. The country is worse off now than it was under Saddam. We won't be around much longer to be the punching bag for every muslim with an axe to grind, so the politicians need to get as much done as they can while we're still there.

Then again, maybe they've all already set up private bank accounts abroad and have planned their escape strategy when we finally give up on them.

 

[This_person]

Look, the Iraqis REALLY have to get they're crap together. The country is worse off now than it was under Saddam. We won't be around much longer to be the punching bag for every muslim with an axe to grind, so the politicians need to get as much done as they can while we're still there.

Then again, maybe they've all already set up private bank accounts abroad and have planned their escape strategy when we finally give up on them.

Other than the worse off now than under Saddam (I don't think there are any rape rooms, government sponsored murders of dissenters, or phony elections anymore), we finally have something to agree upon. They have to get their act together, and the crooks among them are probably trying to figure a way out.

 

[Larry Gude]

What the heck are we...

I disagree. The American Revolutionary War was a civil war. Rather than a country united against the British, Americans were divided over whether the colonies should leave the British empire.

...talking about? I'm not about to dignify what is going on in Iraq with the American Revolution OR Civil wars.

WE rose up and fought our bonds. Yes, we fought each other as well, but there was no third party that came in and turned the whole thing lose.

We've walked into a situation in Iraq without a clue what we are doing AND a plan that has no chance of working because it does not recognize the basic realities on the ground. The only thing we offer is some world view that is not resonating with the people over there.