The true meaning of troop support | Napa Valley Register

Home » Opinion » Commentary

The true meaning of troop support

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Comment

By Ed West

American Canyon coverage

November 24th, 2009

Elementary school kids learn to pedal with safety on their minds

Pitching in to lend a hand in American Canyon

American Canyon on track

November 19th, 2009

Human signs banned in American Canyon

November 16th, 2009

Supporting the new high school, from the start

Political coverage

November 12th, 2009

Monez on Luciana and land use

American Canyon officials balk at budget questionnaire, want more data

November 5th, 2009

Reading through the election results

Who wants to be a political blogger for us?

October 31st, 2009

Whitman in Napa: "Put jobs first"

With magnets on cars or packages full of treats and hygiene items, we all support the troops. That is, until they ask for something specific.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, has spoken up and said we need more troops! They appreciate our treats and goodies and reminders of home, but what they want more than anything is to come home in one piece, having completed their mission. To do that, their leader in the theater, Gen. McChrystal, has said he needs more troops.

A good leader recognizes his strengths and surrounds himself with strong and smart experts to help him with his weaknesses. A good leader listens to his experts.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has demonstrated her good leadership skills. She openly stated that she does not understand what the decision is. General McChrystal is a “Crackerjack general” and we need to listen to him. Feinstein continues by stating that we lost eight soldiers in Nuristan because we could not defend the base.

On Tuesday, Oct. 20, I requested that the city of American Canyon take our support of the troops one step further. We have always rallied and supported our troops. No one can deny that. However, they have asked for more and I think we need to take it a step further. I am asking the city council to pass a proclamation declaring that we as citizens of American Canyon and the United States of America understand that we enjoy our freedom and lifestyles because of the dedication and patriotism of our American soldiers.

American Canyon has hundreds of families that have relatives serving in the armed forces and are at risk. We understand that being a soldier is a dangerous job and that many give their all so that we can enjoy our lifestyles and freedom. American Canyon understands that no soldier should die because they did not have enough help to save them. They should be the best-equipped and the best-armed and the best-trained fighting force, but they should also have adequate forces to support and protect each other.

American Canyon understands that politicians have no business running a war. Generals are the experts and our politicians should listen to them. Military families live with the fear of the knock on the door that tells them something they do not want to hear. Soldiers die due to strategic failures, equipment failures and even just plain bad luck, but no soldier should die because his/her command did not have enough troops to support him/her.

I hope you will consider this with an open mind and really analyze what “troop support” really means.

(West lives in American Canyon.)

52 comment(s)

a teacher wrote on Oct 27, 2009 6:42 AM:

" Wow! I couldn't think of a couldn't think of a more unAmerican letter.

"we enjoy our freedom and lifestyles because of the dedication and patriotism of our American soldiers."

Really? Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King would beg to differ. So would Women suffragettes. So would every newspaper editor in this country. The true threats to liberty and freedom for this country have never been external,but from with in.

Our military does a fine job of protecting us from external threats. They ought to, they are the best military money can buy. However,the founding fathers (you guys are always referring to them) felt that the military should be controlled by a civilian government. We are a democracy and the decision to go to war and it's ultimate conduct should be made by the people and their representatives. It's not always pretty, nor is it always the best military policy, but it is American. Our enemies always considered us weak because of this. They found out that is not true.

Mr. Obama faces a difficult task in Afghanistan. He obviously believes it is important to fight there and win. However, he is also faced with a public who is rapidly tiring of war. He needs a good plan and he has to sell it, as well as clean up the huge mess he inherited and institute the changes Americans want to see. It's a good thing if he takes his time to consider his options. "

post-it wrote on Oct 27, 2009 8:39 AM:

" and to boot, many of the founding fathers were against a standing army that could be used by the President on "foreign adventures".... "

debbie wrote on Oct 27, 2009 8:42 AM:

" This is no different than the gay marriage proclamation debate. I think it's a waste of time for the city council to debate whether to issue a proclamation on a subject that they do not have a hand in. Now if private citizens want to come forward to make their support known I have no problem with that, but for a non-partisan city council to spend time addressing something of a political issue, that's a waste of time and resources. They should stick to city business. I don't think that precludes Mr. West from organizing private support for the troops. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 27, 2009 9:14 AM:

" And then there's Matthew Hoh, the ex-marine who has served in Iraq and has earned citations for bravery, who just left his job as senior U.S. civilian in Zabul province, because he believes not only the strategy in Afghanistan, but the war itself is a waste of "lives and treasure."

"While the Taliban is a malign presence, and Pakistan-based al-Qaeda needs to be confronted, he said, the United States is asking its troops to die in Afghanistan for what is essentially a far-off civil war."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33489374/ns/world_news-washington_post/

Not only is ensuring our "freedoms" way more complex than just going overseas and fighting wars, as a teacher writes, but justification for our presence in foreign civil wars, in terms of efficacy and loss of human lives, is in doubt even by those who are closest to the combat and counterinsurgency efforts. "

glenroy wrote on Oct 27, 2009 9:20 AM:

" Therein is the problem… teach…. It’s not a ‘difficult' task at all and it doesn’t even require a whole lot of intelligence, thank goodness,….a jihadist war is about killing those who are going to kill you, your wife, your children… preferably sooner rather than later….

Obama and his advisors…not too surprisingly are clueless.

Obama could not have picked a worst time to waver….Pakistan is hammering al Qaeda and the Taliban in South Waziristan which is the sanctuary for the bulk of the attacks being carrier out in southeastern Afghanistan, the British just sent another 500 special forces and all that NATO has asked, and expected, is the USA to lead….this rule by committee liberals are so dependant on is a joke.

These troop requested were not unexpected requests, obama promised countless times during his campaign that we would comply with troop requests…which isn’t a good sign considering his batting average on campaign promises, which is well below the Mendoza line….that means less than 2 of 10 for the libs.

I’d suggest folks contemplate the consequences of other ‘perceived’ liberal 'difficult' choices….Freddie/Fannie…Wall Street…our state economy....$4.50 gallon gas….10% unemployment nationally and pushing 13% in California…gutting intelligence agencies…treating terrorism as a crime….. had liberals not applied partisan political solutions to these other ’difficult choices’ we’d not be in recession, we’d be far less dependant of foreign energy and we’d likely never been attacked on 9/11 …

….inevitably with liberalism the solution is worse than the perceived ‘difficult choices‘....'difficult tasks'…without exception. "

Sandra wrote on Oct 27, 2009 9:36 AM:

" I have a son in Baghdad right now. Teacher misses the point. But there are many who seem to miss the point. They are comfortable in their homes, and have the luxury to wax poetic about what is unamerican.
President Obama picked this general, did he not? And now he is upset over the advice his choice is giving him. Gee, another person who will not get with the Obama program. I know that gets him a trifle miffed.
I will agree with this to a point, "The true threats to liberty and freedom for this country have never been external,but from with in." We have external threats, but the atitude of those who do not get it, the atitude of this White House in it's attempt to ban certain aspects of the media from interviews, from congress, etc., this is a threat to our freedoms and liberty. My son is laying his life on the line. Mr West 's son made the ultimate sacrifice for his country. And for what? To defend a way of life that those sitting comfortably on their couches are so quick to give up so they can have things cheap from China, or they can get that government bailout, or get spoon fed the only the info. the administrations wants to feed us?
I know this is not the atitude of many, but those who are so quick to call things unamerican, need to step back and realize what we are losing here. Wake up! "

Raven wrote on Oct 27, 2009 9:36 AM:

" "politicians have no business running a war"....

180 degrees wrong.....politicians set the war policy, generals follow that policy, saluting and saying yes sir...if they cannot they have the option to resign.

We have a civilian leadership of the military not the reverse.The generals have an obligation, morally and legally, to provided those politicians with their best judgment, but in the end it is ultimately the politicians who bear the responsibility for conduct of a war. "

nightwatchman wrote on Oct 27, 2009 9:38 AM:

" With all due respect to Mr. West and the sacrifices made by his family, an open-ended commitment of 40,000 troops with no exit strategy is not supporting the troops at all, just as LBJ sending in hundreds of thousands more troops into Vietnam without a plan to get them out wasn't very "supportive." At least according to the Vietnam Vets I know.

Extra troops with a plan to win and get them back out of there as soon as possible is what we should be doing, and what the President IS doing.

Maybe the City of AmCan should wait 2 weeks until we find out what the plan is before wasting our time and money holding special meetings and passing resolutions. "

Sandra wrote on Oct 27, 2009 9:39 AM:

" Oh, and one more thing...regarding this, "It's a good thing if he takes his time to consider his options."
Hmmm, like he took time thinking about the bailout, or health care, or taking over parts of the auto industry? It seems the only thing he is taking his time on is decisions about the lives of our best. "

pharper wrote on Oct 27, 2009 10:26 AM:

" I agree with everything a teacher said, but also, I wonder whether a proclamation by the city of American Canyon does ANYTHING to help our women and men in uniform. Is the writer willing to join the military? Would he be okay if his son or daughter died in war as long as there were plenty of soldiers to back him/her up?

And here's a thought: how about letting women fight in combat? Israel does. Cuba does. And I bet allowing women to fight in infantry units that see combat would provide a good measure of extra protection. I just read an article on Yahoo News, I believe (I wish I remembered where it was from) about female soldiers just itching to get in their and do their part in combat. "

glenroy wrote on Oct 27, 2009 10:30 AM:

" Sandra.... couldn't have written it better.... "

littlered56 wrote on Oct 27, 2009 10:46 AM:

" Our government runs our military Our military do nit run our government.
Gen McChrystal should have been fired for insubordination just like Mcarthur was.Bush took us into this war by kies of weapons of mass distruction and I am thankful Obama is using his head and taking his time and not reacting like some immature child. We have lost lives over there due to defective armourment thanks to Bush sending them off unprepared.
Bush gave the largest bail out money to AIG ...hummmmmm "

krusty wrote on Oct 27, 2009 10:50 AM:

" You would think that we as a country would have learned by now that the answer isn't always "send more troops." The mission in Afghanistan should be and should have always been to destroy the key components of Al Queda in order to prevent another attack. What it has become is the United States invading a foreign country and telling others how to live their lives.

The United States armed forces were originally meant as a defense against enemy invasion. Funny how the war mongers always seem to forget that. We made a huge mistake in Vietnam and we're making huge mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan. The original intent for invading Afghanistan was a good one, but it's becoming a terrible situation for everyone involved. Our soldiers continue to risk their lives and we continue to spend billions overseas all in the hope that we can force people into wanting a way of life they do not desire. "

littlered56 wrote on Oct 27, 2009 11:02 AM:

" One more thing....It is obsurd to insinuate the liberals caused 911. There was an intelligent report left for Bush to R E A D he and Miss Rice opted not to Bother reading it. That is the leadership skills Bush had..arrogant to the point of ignorance.
I do not think Bush can read them thar big boy words with out a ear plug with some one pronouncing them for him.
Obama is doing the more intelligent thing. "

nightwatchman wrote on Oct 27, 2009 11:08 AM:

" Well Sandra, since it was President Bush who signed the bailout, I'm not sure how long it took Obama to think about it. Funny how the right is revising history on everything...pinning all of Bush's screw ups on Obama. Very predictable.

And...a health care bill hasn't been passed yet, so that's taking a while to "think about" too.

I find it staggering that anyone would object to weighing options and getting this right, particularly with the history of wars in Afghanistan and the real potential for endless conflict. The are actual lives of real people we're talking about here, not some kind of abstraction.

Obama has a right to be upset at McChrystal, you don't go straight to the press like that. Look at what Bush did to Shinseki, and Shinseki just made his comments at a Congressional hearing when asked. "

Hear Ye wrote on Oct 27, 2009 11:27 AM:

" NIghtwatchmen-

It's because these are just political games being played. You didn't hear a peep from these people when Bush and Cheney left troop requests sitting around for months on end. "

Hear Ye wrote on Oct 27, 2009 11:56 AM:

" Ed West wrote on May 7th in regards to his opposing of the resolution supporting all people of American Canyon.
"Councils have a moral obligation to stay focused and on task dealing with City Business. "

Why the change in heart? It seems that you're being inconsistent beyond the fact that this is merely a political game your playing at the expense of city time and money. "

Sandra wrote on Oct 27, 2009 12:21 PM:

" Night watchmen,
It was Obama who gave even more money than Bush put up. I believe this bail out had 2 steps...and neither of them helped those who truly needed it. I am a bit insulted that you catagorize my opinion so flippantly.
I was against Bush's actions also. It is not about left or right. I know those who are so entrenched in their view point have a hard time seeing that.
How can you not see that the health bill is being rushed through? It is only the very vocal protests of american citizens that has slowed it down a bit. It is certainly not the administration wanting to study it more thoroughly.
And hear ye has short memory, if he does not recall my criticisms of Bush. "

a teacher wrote on Oct 27, 2009 12:38 PM:

" Sandra - You should check your basic assumptions. Obama has only been in the White House for barely 9 months. He started, day one with an economic catastrophe and two wars that were not going exactly well. To imply that he is taking his time dealing with these problems flies in the face of the facts.

One of Obama's earliest acts was to replace the Afghanistan theatre commander with one his Defense Secretary felt was better suited to running a winning campaign against the Taliban. He also significantly increased troop strengths in Afghanistan. These are not the actions of someone "wavering".

I see no evidence that he dislikes the advice given by his generals. All I see is that the the decision on a strategy is more complex than you would think. The American people do not like this war. The chances of winning - which, by the way have not been defined - are not so great. That's from McChrystal himself. I say take your time and figure it out. We've already had 8 years of doing it wrong. "

rogers wrote on Oct 27, 2009 1:17 PM:

" Ed West wrote "American Canyon understands that politicians have no business running a war. Generals are the experts and our politicians should listen to them".

And Ed, the President also has the title "Commander and Chief" of the armed forces.

Wouldn't it be a good idea to find out if Afghanistan is even capable of having a government first? The Soviets had 350,000 troops there and lost. We had over 500.000 in Vietnam and lost. And it was the advice of military "experts" that got us into that mess.

We saw what happened when we rushed into Iraq and where did that get us, sir? Mission accomplished...

I think the city of American Canyon has more appropriate things to do than wage war with the Obama administration.

And glenroy - so the Brits are adding another 500 troops. Wow! What does that make it - 9500 total? 84% of British citizens want their troops out within one year. We have 64,000 US troops there currently.

So while you advocate a long term, very expensive holy war with Muslim extremists, you blame the Obama administration for all the economic ills of the last 8 years. That's rich! I suppose you could also blame liberals for the weather but then we would have to listen to you rant about global warming...

Same old conservative bogus blame and bluster... "

Raven wrote on Oct 27, 2009 1:19 PM:

" Sandra, the 'bailout' was one program with the TARP distributed in stages, asked by bush and signed by Bush..Obama gets the credit or blame, depending upon your point of view, for the stimulus package.

and I will throw some fuel on the fire by saying perhaps if Bush/Cheney hadn't led us off on a crusade into Iraq we would have left enough troops in Afghanistan in the first place to have done the job right then, instead of dealing with it eight years later...

as for health care being rushed...it has been almost six months since the first bill was introduced...some kind of rush. "

Paddy wrote on Oct 27, 2009 2:02 PM:

" Let the generals run the wars, let Obama continue to campaign. It's what he does best. "

Sandra wrote on Oct 27, 2009 3:24 PM:

" Raven,
In regards to:"and I will throw some fuel on the fire by saying perhaps if Bush/Cheney hadn't led us off on a crusade into Iraq..."
And I will add if the democratic congress hadn't cut the funding to help Afghanistan rebuild after the war with russia, Bin Laden would of never come to power.....or if Clinton had moved on Bin Laden when he had the chance...Bin Laden would have been history by now.
It is a useless game to play Raven. What is, is. As Forest Gump said, "stupid is as stupid does". There is plenty of blame to go around for why we are where we are today.

Teacher,
It seems to me that If Obama picked this general, then perhaps he should listen to him. I do not have the faith you have in Obama's judgement, as so far I feel he has only made things very much worse. Time will tell, but I an not a believer. "

a teacher wrote on Oct 27, 2009 4:29 PM:

" Sorry guys, but in America, politicians run the wars. It's been that way since 1776. "

misfit wrote on Oct 27, 2009 8:10 PM:

" Just bring them all home! Bush and Cheney were the ones who took their eye off the ball for 8 years. I do recall the Rangers being called off after being close to getting at Bin Laden in Tora Bora. Why? "

John Richards wrote on Oct 27, 2009 9:39 PM:

" Krusty wrote"The United States armed forces were originally meant as a defense against enemy invasion."

Really? Then how would you characterize the 12/7/1941 event (Pearl Harbor)? Were you also opposed to our entry into WW2?
The 9/11/2001 event wasn't all that different. In fact, the number of American casualties was very similar. "

Raven wrote on Oct 27, 2009 10:51 PM:

" the military runs the wars in accordance with policies set by the politicians...been that way since Washington was at the helm..

I would argue there is a difference in denying funding for the afghans to fight and work for themselves and throwing 140K + Americans into a war based of lies and deception. .. and how those troops were removed on a wild goose chase is more relevant to than was Bush #I and the democrats (and the GOP) did or didn't do before the invasion on 2001. "

edwest wrote on Oct 27, 2009 11:00 PM:

" Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Women suffragettes, every newspaper editor in this country exist because the Military is protecting our Constitution. So much talk here about the merits of the war and none about the 8 that died on October 3 because they did not have enough troops to defend their base, because politicians were thinking about the requests of their General. I heard a gentleman tonight say he was against the troop support resolution because troops died in Vietnam because they did not have enough troops? Many of you are leaving a very important point out- if we do not support the troops with the best then take them out of the war, any war and where. There has never been a war started by the United States military. Only Politicians start wars. Someone mentioned Korea and McArthur? Another example of politicians not allowing Generals to fight the war and what do we have- 50+ years later and still no resolution.

We should never bury a soldier because they did not have enough troops to defend the base they were assigned to.

It was not military leaders that lost Vietnam it was politicians

My resolution simply says that to support the troops they deserve the best training, equipment, intelligence and troop saturation- they know better than anyone what they need to win. It also says define what winning is or get out "

Paddy wrote on Oct 28, 2009 7:06 AM:

" Sorry teacher. Politicians declare war, fund war, then obstruct the process but it's the generals who run the war. If politicians ran wars we'd be speaking Russian. "

Paddy wrote on Oct 28, 2009 7:13 AM:

" pharper - Ed West's son died in combat. He's writing from experience, understand that. It's stated in the article. His daughter is now serving our country and he's pleading for the politicians to listen to the generals who should have the freedom to determine troop strength. That is what they study; that is what they do for a living if you will.

Regarding women in combat... what war has Cuba fought in the last 30 years? What does their army do? They guard an island. Don't compare women going house to house having to decide if the 8 year old in the living room must be shot because they're rigged with explosives to standing endless watch over a beach. "

Raven wrote on Oct 28, 2009 10:45 AM:

" Someone mentioned Korea and McArthur..

ed, the same MacArthur who swore the chines would never enter Korea and after they did and massacred thousands of UN forces, overrunning them and forcing them back to the south, wanted to use nuclear weapons on China? That MacArthur, the one who refused, when ordered by the President to follow US policy?

I am glad to see the double standard on what is appropriate business for the city council is alive and well. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 28, 2009 11:06 AM:

" "We should never bury a soldier because they did not have enough troops to defend the base they were assigned to."

Yes, and that should have been taken into consideration before we sent the troops into an unnecessary war without enough support or equipment. It sounds like you, Ed West, agree with our current president, who has "promised a 'clear mission' with defined goals and the equipment needed to get the job done," according to yesterday's NVR/AP article.

We've had Mission Accomplished, Successful Surge, and repeated deployments of up to 15 months each, which has taken a toll on lives, famlies, and morale. We definitely need to define what "victory" would mean. I don't believe it means sending out more and more troops, like pawns in a chess game, to other countries to fight their civil wars.

I'm sorry for the loss of your son, and of all the other the sons and daughters, the premature loss to them of their lives, and the loss of limbs, mental stability and physical integrity that has ensued since we decided to invade two countries at once, at least one of which with no clear rationale, no certain goal, and no exit strategy whatsoever. "

MyWrites wrote on Oct 28, 2009 1:03 PM:

" My problem with your argument Ed is that you presume the president does not have our troops best interests in mind. I don't believe that is the case. You conveniently quote Diane Feinstein here but I doubt that you would normally be inclined to do that.

I would also add that the 8 US soldiers lost at the outpost in Nuristan has been all over FOX News and conservative blog sites and used as an example of why the Obama administration is incompetent.

This was a small NATO outpost that was a weak link and the Taliban were able exploit that. Interestingly, a year ago 9 US soldiers were killed in the same area in a similar attack but we didn't hear much about that and Mr. Bush was still the President.

I also object to using the deaths of 8 soldiers there, as an example of not enough support, particularly when General McChrystal was planning to withdraw from the area as part of a strategy to focus on protecting population centers.

So whose responsibility was it for that oversight? I would suggest the military leadership that is currently on the ground in Afghanistan; the same "experts" you put so much faith in.

Also the greatest number of US troops killed there in the last year have been from IEDs. More troops won't protect against that.

Bring more soldiers to Afghanistan and we will have more combat incidents, which means more deaths, theirs AND ours.

A city council vote on this subject has no place on the agenda. Please stick with the needs of the city of American Canyon. "

a teacher wrote on Oct 28, 2009 1:16 PM:

" Mr. West, respectfully, you are wrong. It is the people of this country that defend the constitution, not it's military. You defend the constitution and your rights every time you exercise your right to vote, your right to assemble, your right to free speech. Your dissent defends the constitution. Even Rush Limbaugh, whom I despise, defends our rights by speaking his mind. I would lay down my life for his right to do so.

The founding fathers of this country set up the government so that the military serves an elected government. Even during the Revolutionary War, General Washington was accountable to the Continental Congress, who could have fired him at any time.

Presidents are elected in part, to chose the course of the military. It is the president's job accept or reject the advice of their military. Presidents have done both in the past and we have managed to survive. "

a teacher wrote on Oct 28, 2009 1:18 PM:

" I'm sorry Paddy, but you must be thinking of another country. The President is the Commander in Chief of the military. The generals take their orders from him. Perhaps you should read the constitution. "

Paddy wrote on Oct 28, 2009 2:44 PM:

" teacher - Commander in Chief in name only. Obama has even less experience than Bush had in military strategy. I pray to God he has no strategic say in how these wars are fought.

But, considering how it's been going this month maybe all that blood is on Obama's hands because he's not qualified to lead a troop much less a war.

Incredible. "

Hear Ye wrote on Oct 28, 2009 3:21 PM:

" How can zero military strategy experience be more than zero military strategy experience? That makes no sense.

I'm sure you also know that Obamas "delay" in responding to a troop increase request is a drop in the bucket compared to the never fulfilled troop request Bush left on the table for countless months. "

russ wrote on Oct 28, 2009 8:01 PM:

" I stand with Ed West and Paddy on this one.

The president decides the overall goals of the country. The generals tell the president what resources it will take.

During his campaign, Obama said Afghanistan was the war worth fighting. In March Obama agreed with the counterinsurgency goals developed prior.

Conditions changed from March until now. Now Obama is thinking of changing his mind, probably after the Nov 3 elections. Obama has a political problem, not a generals problem.

America and NATO have 70,000 troops in Afghanistan, now undermanned and under equipped. This is an Obama problem.

Time for a decision, Mr. President. Americans, NATO and Pakistani soldiers are in a battle for their lives with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. "

Raven wrote on Oct 28, 2009 9:40 PM:

" Paddy...get used to it but as Obama is CinC in reality, not just name only,, he is at the helm of the strategic policy of the country....as as been said numerous times...the civilians set the policy and the militarily says yes sir (or ma'am) and sets out to make it happen...or, if they disagree, they resign. "

rogers wrote on Oct 28, 2009 11:21 PM:

" Paddy you may find it of interest when you compare the amount of military experience that our elected leaders in Washington have. The ratio is roughly 3:1 Demos vs Repubs. Those who have served and particularly in battle are a bit more careful about sending our troops into harm's way.

George Bush (the lesser) and D*ck Cheney had no combat experience; Cheney had no military experience. Yet Al Gore and John Kerry (both sons of wealthy families) volunteered and served in Vietnam. Bush and Cheney gleefully led us on a wild goose chase in Iraq. Have you tallied that total bill yet?

Bill Clinton had no military experience and chose a Republican for his Secretary of Defense, William Cohen. Republicans treated Cohen as a traitor because he worked for Clinton. He corrected them saying, "I work for the American people."

Republicans demanded that Clinton put troops on the ground in Yugoslavia. Clinton and Cohen felt the war could be successfully waged from the air. They were proven right and only 14 US military died in combat there.

Barrack Obama tries to use the best people he can find in these important positions. Robert Gates, also a Republican, is the current SecDef. Tell me about the generals who disagreed with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and were forced into early retirement. Tell me about the last administration's ability to hire incompetents for critical positions - as long as they were Republican and Christian they were on board and no Democrats served in that administration regardless of experience.

Obama will take care of our troops. He is more concerned with serving the American people than Republicans who demonstrate repeatedly their commitment to party, power and big business ($$$) than to the people who elected them. "

Paddy wrote on Oct 29, 2009 7:55 AM:

" Hear Ye - President Bush was a member of Texas Air National Guard. President Obama, nada.

So. If Bush's background = 0 strategic experience then Obama's would be a negative strategic experience and even more reason to let the generals call the shots. "

wyngyrl wrote on Oct 29, 2009 9:57 AM:

" I'm not sure what Mr. West is asking for. Approval of a proclamation in a small town does very little to actually support the troops. We've had American soldiers in Afghanistan for 8 years now. The Taliban are still operating. Al Quaeda is still operating. The tribal areas are still uncontrollable. The government is still corrupt. Pakistan is still draining US dollars on a daily basis. American citizens are still blithly "supportive", as long as it doesn't impact our lifestyles directly. Sorry to be so cynical, but I think this "war" is unwinnable no matter how many young men and women we send over there. I am perfectly OK with our President and his advisers taking a long, careful, analytical look at the situation, rather than just reacting with more weapons, more lives, and more dollars. Fox News and Mr. Cheney disagree - but they should have thought about it a bit more carefully 8 years ago. (can't use his first name, it gets censored. lol!) "

wyngyrl wrote on Oct 29, 2009 11:22 AM:

" I hears Secretary Gates on the radio recently, along with Secretary Hillary Clinton. He said he "wanted more in American's toolbox than just a large hammer." He felt that we needed options other than bombing & weapons in order to truly reach the people and help them to build, not just destroy. I am sure he has the President's ear. I trust them to work together for solutions, in a way which I never ever trusted Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield. "

Hear Ye wrote on Oct 29, 2009 11:44 AM:

" Paddy-

That's great but what military strategy experience did Bush have? "

Raven wrote on Oct 29, 2009 11:55 AM:

" yes, Bush was heroic in the battle of Texas .... a look at his

By regulation, National Guard pilots must take and pass an annual physical in order to remain in flight status, in the three months prior to a pilot's birthday (in Bush's case, July 6). Bush did not to take this mandatory physical examination in mid-1972, thus ending his pilot's career. He did not fly after April 15, 1972.

As a result of his failure to take his physical, his flight status was suspended by his commander on August 1, 1972, confirmed by Col Bobby Hodges on September 5, 1972 and confirmed again by a National Guard Bureau order on September 29, 1972, which meant he no longer was authorized to fly as a pilot.

Although he had taken the physical twice previously by flight surgeons, Bush says that he wanted to wait to take the physical until it could be done by his own private doctor. Regulations require that the physical be performed by an Air Force doctor. Air Force Flight Surgeons were assigned to Maxwell Air Force Base where Bush purportedly drilled in October and November 1972 and in January 1973. There is no record of his attendance in the 187th Alabama ANG. The Alabama unit’s commanders say they never saw Bush or any paperwork showing he performed drills there. However a January 1973 document references a dental exam that Bush received at the Alabama base. There is no record of a physical in either 1972 or in 1973, the last two years when Bush attended drills. "

rogers wrote on Oct 29, 2009 4:01 PM:

" Raven you aren't implying that something might have shown up in a routine blood test like alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, meth...?

I understand he did have a few problems before finding Jesus. Of course since then he has managed to create a good many more for the rest of the nation and world.

Not to worry I plan to attend his next $19.00 Get Motivated seminar! I'm hoping he will be able to speak English by then? I suppose you gets what you pays fer. "

Raven wrote on Oct 29, 2009 6:20 PM:

" not implying a thing...just that a national guard pilot appears to have blown off his responsibility to get his flight physical...a requirement for the job. "

Paddy wrote on Oct 29, 2009 10:52 PM:

" Criticize all you want. Bottom line, George W. Bush had far more experience then Barack Obama does. The point of the letter: let the generals to make the call to win a war. Period. The current president is an empty suit. He always has been. "

Raven wrote on Oct 30, 2009 12:15 PM:

" So you would rather have a pilot who shirks his responsibilities at the helm, paddy....says a lot right there... "

Hear Ye wrote on Oct 30, 2009 1:07 PM:

" Bush had more experience? That's an interesting take. "

edwest wrote on Oct 30, 2009 6:25 PM:

" read the resolution- provide the troops with the best, listen to Generals they know more about running a war than the politicians, it says if you don't have a defined strategy get out, it says that Diane Feinstein as the Chairman of the Senate Select intelligence committee has an important message. Local Government engaging Washington DC is what our COuntry is about, and as far as gay marriage goes, get real. The LAw says Gay marriage is illeagal, the voters in American CAnyon voted against Gay MArriage the Constitution of Calif banns same sex marriage, and I took an oath to support and defend the COnstitution. There are no such restrictions on our ability to speak out. If more cities would speak out against Washington DC there would be more change. There has never been a war started by a General, only by a politicians. Generals win wars politicians lose them. Learn something form teh Oakland Raiders. Let the Coach run the team, and let the Owner own pay for it, not run it "

Raven wrote on Oct 31, 2009 9:57 AM:

" ed, our Constitution says the owner, (the people) via the president, runs the team.....

that is what that oath you took means. "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: