Here's a question for you.

Mr Rogers needs to learn the difference between "rant" and "informed commentary". 1. "Lions led by Donkeys" is supposed to have originated in a German General Staff assessment of the British Army pre-1914. 2. His 2nd and 3rd promises are invalidated by von Molke's "No plan survives first contact with the enemy". The remainder of his rant fails to atone for those two errors. I do not doubt he fully supports the "troops"; I am not certain of his ability to rationally distinguish the "lions" from the "donkeys' he righteously castigates. His subsequent promises of support to the "lions' on their return is suspect for its detail: the VA, medical, etc. Why not begin slightly earlier, such as when the "lions" are doing their job, which is fighting the enemy. I detect a bit of "Just because I don't support the War doesn't mean I'm not a Patriot: I Support The Troops!" syndrome. His arguements somewhat bring to mind Congressman Murtha, who is a Marine, who supports the troops. Who, as a member of the House Appropriations Defence Sub-Committee did what to ensure the wellbeing of the troops? I think Mr Rogers fits his definition of a Chickenhawk. Cheers

Hey all. Found this site while pruning the sitemeter. I'm not sure why my guitar is smashed, but I'll attempt to respond in kind to the very reasonable comments tossed out. 1.) Mr. Heinrichs: I am aware of the Lions/Donkeys phrase's provenance -- it actually originated in the Crimean War, I believe, in the context of the Russians, but was adopted in the late teens and twenties in Britain. I didn't think it necessary to include this in the essay. I have a Canadian heritage along with my American, and as other Commonwealth folk (I hope Trias as an Aussie will back me) will tell you,the phrase entered common usage in describing the dynamic of the war. 2.) I'm not sure how much merit your argument has in stating that my 2nd and 3rd point are invalidated by the terminally overused Molke reference. That is a quote, not a general vaccination against criticism. The fact that plans do not often execute as intended does not, in ANY way excuse a.) a FAILURE to plan or b.) a failure to ADAPT a plan when the situation requires it. Ny own favorite military quote,is one that I think,unfortunately, very relevant to the current situation. Hart: "Hope is not a plan." 3.) As I pointed out, to me differentiating between the Lions and Donkeys is not difficualt at all. My Grandfather called them the Bastards in Suits, and I see no reason to disagree with him. I agree with your point that support for the troops should be done earlier, during the combat. You may not have read the essay clearly, as that's precisely what I'm advocating. As a member of a democratic society, we have a processs through which we support the troops in material and policy -- it is the government. It is the ENTIRE POINT OF THE ARTICLE that it is while troops are in the field must we, as civilians, live up to our end of the bargain with the troops and make sure they have what they need, and that we act as checks against them being used (or misused) by politicians of any stripe, liberal or conservative. We do this, in a free society, through criticism and oversight of the government, which unfortunately some people consider disloyal. They are, to be blunt, goddam wrong. The bit about taking care of the troops when they're home -- the fact that this Administration fails to do so -- is very much just a sad bonus point. If you're asking what I'm doing concretely (as does Trias) -- well, before I answer, we need to point out that's a bit of a specious question. What CAN a single citizen do other than stay informed, speak his conscience and vote in order to put people in office who will live up to the the responsibilities he perceives? It's the nature of having a professional Army. That said, I use what little influence I have to fundraise for various military charities. I have raised money for the Army Emergency Relief Fund: I am currenty fundraising for Fisher House, a group which provides housing for families of wounded servicemen and women so they can be close to their loved ones during their recuperation at VA hospitals. (I will note that I am currently matching funds -- what you donate, I match personally -- and although there has been some serious traffic from this site since the link, I haven't seen a donation yet. I hope some people swing by and drop a few bucks in the pot for such a good cause). On a more personal note, I send supplies to various deployed friends in Iraq, and also do so through the excellent service provided by AnySoldier.com for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm sure many readers of this blog are familiar with it, but I urge any who aren't to check it out. You'll also see that from that essay you have no idea if I "support the war" or not -- that is intentional, and the answer may surprise you. Indeed, the obligations I raise are independent of one's feelings about whatever conflict the troops are in at any given time, as our obligations (at least for me) do not nor should not change based on that context. I nod to your keen sense about my roiling inner conflict in supporting the troops or the war, but I must insist your psychic powers are not all you'd hope. As to Murtha's role -- well, I missed the bit where he outranked Rumsfeld and so te SecDef's mistakes can be overridden by the Congresman. Considering John Murtha's high standing with the Pentagon and his lifelong support of higher defense appropriations (his voting record is conveniently public record), I think it fair to say he's doing what he can in the position he's in -- and a fair bit more, opening himself up to considerable political heat for his outspokenness. I'm not sure, JM Heinrichs, how supporting the troops, holding the Bastards in Suits accountable for their mistakes, and voting my conscience pens me in my own definition of Chickenhawk. And I'm REALY not sure how criticism for those who treat our armed forces like employees (as does the essay I'm quite specifically responding to, as quoted) earns me a smashed guitar. We have a lot in common, you and I. Don't let the people who have made a living dividing America for their own political gain convince you otherwse.

emdfl - I think you are wrong about John Rogers. I think he'd be peeved no matter which party was in control. Aren't you to some extent? I know I am. I am pro OIF/pro OEF, but geez! Some of this crap is really aggravating. I understand every war has problems. I understand that part of our problem is that there is more real time reporting of f*&^-ups. That you have to break eggs to make an omlette. That government agencies lumber along. But come on! You can't dismiss these problems by saying anyone calling attention to them must be a Democrat. I remember how furious I was when my opinions about Clinton were dismissed just because of this Nixon campaign button I wear. Mr. Rogers - It was a well written post although I don't agree with everything. I tossed a few bucks in your tin cup. And speaking of lions - kudos to you for sticking your head in the mouth of this one. On Warren Bell's quote that started this - I thought it was very funny and I liked it. I myself could be labeled a "chickenhawk" having never served while being quick to say "bomb this", "squash that". However, I do my part by being like the civil service exam. I award extra points in the entry process for "The Rotation" for those in the military or with a military background. Princess Crabby

Eh. Mr Rodgers can point fingers all he wants. I've spent years yelling, "No More Task Force Smiths!" I've spent years telling people that 'books not bombs' was idiotic when we spend millions per year on 'art'. Like others here I've given to charities to the point that I'm eating ramen and brown label macaroni and cheese. I've tried to put my hairy butt on the line only to be told that I'm not wanted. So take the call of chickenhawk and.... Moving onto less personal and more cogent points: 1) Wars are transformative events in history. (Go read. I'll wait.) Currently we're transforming the ME from something disconected from the global economy, and, worse, global attitudes about how to resolve age old disputes. In the ME the image of the bedouin raider, rather akin to the KKK raider from Birth of a Nation, is a symbol of a hero. We're trying to change that. Ergo, since Iraq is the first step in this transformation required by GWOT, which is a generational conflict as poorly defined as the Cold War was, it is part. Nothing wrong with supporting it. You may disagree with the plan. You may disagree with the way the plan's been implemented or been altered to fit events as they unfold as is your right. BUt that doesn't make anyone a moral reprobate for not agreeing with you. I know quite a few Romanians, Vietnamese, Hungarians, etc, and so found myself a little bit more in favor of Rollback instead of Containment. But that didn't make those in favor of Containment moral reprobates----the flat out appeasers were. 2) Basic economics comes to play here. Who promised a 'Peace economy', a bridge to the future, and a shift away from a 'war economy'? Who pushed that line for 40 years while guys like me were screaming 'No more Task Force Smiths'? No body armor? Maybe that's because we didn't budget for it for 10 years before we needed to go. No apc for urban environments? Maybe that's because, even after Somalia and the magnesium flare it was to the need, that people didn't budget for it. Norman Polmar has written that it takes about 15 years for a weapons system/platform to go from drawing board to the point where it 'needs to be fixed in the fleet'(being accepted, learned, and modified by end user to the point it does what it's supposed to). So, gee, maybe there is something to that quip, 'You go to war with the Army you have, not the one you want.' 3) Why now? Why not? Things weren't going to get better(see Cassie for links on how sanctions were about to be repealed, and don't forget that they were a joke since Iran has been able to get a nuclear reactor up and going and Iraq was able to buy better weapons than he had in Desert Storm). What advantage would we get for waiting? None. ANd like my fellow Californian, GS Patton, I'll take a workable and flawed plan today over a perfect plan sometime in the nebulous future. 4) Yes, I do think of the Military as employees. Nice rhetorical game going on there. Inserting classic Marxian class warfare into the discussion to make those of us who accept that fact into 'Suits' who work for 'Big Corportations'. Turn us into the villians for accepting reality. War is policy by other means. It simply is. The mil is the means by which we enforce or implement policy in certain situations. They are gov't employees. I own the gov't(as do you). Therefore, your The Boss too. Welcome to the Overclass, and no amount of populist lines that spew from your keyboard can change that your part of the OVerclass because you have employees because you own the gov't. I try to make and influence policy. Guys like John, SGT B, The Cheif, or my buddy SGT. JEM(currently in Iraq) are the policy implementers while I'm the policy crafter or maker(that's what it means to have the military subbordinate to civillian control). They are my employees(or were). There's nothing evil in that. I find it ridiculous to assert that they are anything but. Going back to MY Catholicism, part of a Covenant is to honor it. They agreed to be my employee. I agreed not to screwball them over. I promised not to send them into situations of danger unless there was something useful to be gained by their sacrifice. So far I've lived up to those promises. A transformed ME is worth doing. As is a transformed Africa, which we're trying to attain with TF-HoA, because it increases liberality, equality, standard of living, and TRUE peace in the world instead of absence of conflict. That's why we're doing it. 5) Why not someplace else? Simple. Complacentcy, which bred a volatile situation where acting fast(with Iraq and Afghanistan being the easiest) became an imperative. When Triple F(Francis F'n Fukuyama) cried that History Was OVer and that we'd won(slaying evil socialism---look to S. America Francis) we reveled in it. Triumphalism of the worst sort. We went from saying that things like the ME and Africa and terrorism had to be on the back burners because we needed to take that 7-12% GDP(typically less, that's just what SIPRI indicates was the level during early Reagan, and decried it as war mongery) our Congress was willing to give us while spending 50% GDP on education(still not enough!) and 2% on 'art' to conduct Containment or be ready to fight the USSR to forgeting that there were other things on the burner. Yeah, if we deserved 9/11 as Chomskyites claim we did it's because we forgot that there were other wolves out there, and started to treat our sheepdogs like red headed step children. And who presided over that occurance? Who pushed that for decades seriously as national policy? T’wasn’t us chickenhawks doing that. Failure has many fathers, just like victory. 6) If you want to blame 'The Suits,' go to a mirror, bub. You're The Suit, just like me. You wanted money spent on things instead of buying your employees gear they told you they needed. Shame on you. Instead of buying the alternative to the armored Humvee, which was never designed to be armored and is suffering maintenance problems because of that, you wanted to fund federally funded day care, or environmental protections. Shame on you for being so callous. Shame on you for having other agendas and limited resources from which to call upon to meet them all. Shame. Suit. 7) So go ahead and call me a chickenhawk. I don't revel in it. I'm rather ashamed of the epithet actually fitting me. I accept it reluctantly. But you and yours failed the Troops long before they took the field because you consistently denied them that which they told you they needed so as to avoid living and dying solely by the Powell Doctrine(something that no President was going to let the mil live by. We've become an inteterventionist nation.) and Big War against near peer competitors so you could have your progressivist policies implemented. The day you accept that is the day I'll stop fighting and denying the chickenhawk moniker.

ry i think you're miles off track and you make multiple sweeping assumptions which is much like the behaviour of extremism itself. 1) Wake up. A lot of people were not voters or possibly even alive in the past. Some of are not even voters now. 2) Instead of arguing with you about real powers of a citizen to control government policy I'll cut to the chase so you might absorb something. Is the person in the mirror actually wearing a suit. Think about it. I do however agree with the time delay for implementation. These solutions take a long time. Problem finding, engineering, production and integration isn't an overnight factor.

It's probably time someone else said something but then i'm almost as windy as you are. Trust me I’m not your average US redneck conservative either. I love saying trust me like that. I think it’s from Knight Rider. Who knows how old anyone is on here although i do hope those in the military are of consenting age. In my limited experience age doesn't always translate to maturity or knowledge that well so I don’t make many judgements on that. I didn't view his words as guiltmongering merely as a call to pay attention to things we need to deal with. As I said, I think these things take time so what might be an immediate thing to Mr Rogers I view instead as the future (in 15 years as you put it). Oh I know it's not about me but then personal commentary is best left to email. I'm new to the blogosphere no doubt about it but even I can see this is a river of opinion and everyone is going to stick their three bob in, me included. To be honest I find it hard to follow your thoughts. I suspect my main disagreement with your pov is the idea that the will of one translates to the action of government. Or perhaps that one=all. Feel free to talk or ask whatever. I don’t follow philosophical structures much.

It's cool Trias. I'm still learning stuff and I've been hanging here at Argghhh! for over a year. We did a 'music that's popular the year you graduated from HS' once. That's how I know I'm kinda young for the typical crowd here at Argghhh!, at least amoungst the active commentors. There's a couple younger than me, but only a few. And if you found anything remotely close to maturity in me I'd be astonished. The thing I'm having trouble with Trias is getting you to move beyond the individual and see the movement aspect of Mr Rodgers. He speaks for more than just himself. I think you see this or can see this. He's just articulating a complaint that's emblematic for a large number of people, not just himself. That's the context in which I'm making my statements. This political group(and it isn't democrats in general, or Liberals in general, it's far more specific than that) want to take 'moral highground' on the cheap. They want to show that they're 'pro-troops' more authentically than the rest of us, and some within that strata see political gain to be had out of it. That's where the Johnie come lately element comes from not only in my deluges of 'lectrons but also in The Armorer's('Where was this guy during Kosovo?' TO be fair the blogosphere really didn't exist back then, so maybe Rodgers was as opposed to that too because of the failures of Clarke's planning in Kosov---and they're well documented---but I doubt it given that Rodgers links to Clarke.). There's an element to it, maybe unconciously on their part, of just getting the current administration for a problem they only just noticed while the same problems existed previously. So, welcome to the party new troop supporters, drop your 'righteous indignation' at the door, pick up a shovel and get to work---there's more than enough to go around. All in all, Rodgers seems like a good enough guy---at least he's not like the DKosers who said that their taxes should be buying Valor-IT type laptops, he gets that there are limited resources. Like WW it may have helped if he actually found out what we 'chickenhawks' actually do to help the warfighter and what we really think instead of just blame us for everything under the sun, and eat kittens too. Sure, some of us only type. Some of us do more, much more than that(looks in the Armorer's and the Cheif's general directions). Most of us fall somewhere in between---like Fuzzy who, depsite much personal turmoil, continues to do God's work thru Valor-IT.(Gawd, I really should get back to writing for someone else. Sigh. Sorry Kat, I'm working on it!). In fairness, it sounds like Rodgers just had an epiphany. If he thinks about it some more he might want to retract some of his criticism of us. But, I doubt it. There's too much to be gained in domestic politics for that. He may admit in his heart of hearts that it is the fault of a movement, an entire thought process, but not when he can use it as a mace to beat the heads of those who disagree with him. I know the type. I can be that guy on certain days. But yeah, you should hang out here more Trias. I'm always looking for someone to force me to refine my thinking. And you seem like good company too.

John: 48 Did u fight in WW2? j/k. Hmm not a bad question although the defining point is kinda vague. I guess 7 will do excluding the Colonel of course. Ry: I'd put down my music but half of it was my father's or weird (might mean same thing really). So being selective let's pick GnR, MelnKim and the Bangles for an estimation of my receedogrey index (RGI). Well astonish yourself. Instead of wrenching up my mild vitriol you ignored it quite easily. It's mature I'm afraid. Better start writing your obituary. There seems to be a lot of aspects of Mr Rogers beyond the one post of his I read involved here. I think I understand your position now but I lack knowledge in this area and about him. In the US supporting the troops is a catchphrase but here it falls flat. Partly because we've more pacifists who don't give a shit and partly because words don't amount to actions and we'll view the 'supporter' as a pollie then. Which is to say badly. Throwing general views of Bush etc aside, he and others are responsible for current decisions eg the plans, Iraq and after care are an aspect but much of the military's issues are longer term issues.

Trias - one of our younger-than-Ry readers describes us thusly.