minty green linked to a blog called Operation Yellow Elephant, subtitled “it’s their war, why aren’t they fighting it.”
I was just pointing out that for the most part “they” are. Moreover, “they” are to a far greater degree than the Democrats are, so criticism of certain individual Republicans who aren’t might be misguided.
After all, “they” were signing up even in the Clinton years when Democrats were choosing in disproportionate numbers to, as you said, serve in other ways.
It was not a criticism of Democrats at all, just a criticism of this form of criticism. It’s just more chickenhawk crap, which I really can’t stand.
We have an all-volunteer force, which means that however much we rightly respect and honor our troops, we do not shame those who, as you said, choose to serve in other ways. That’s not the right thing to do.
I think you don’t get it. I don’t buy into this line of thinking personally, but the idea is that the yellow elephants support the war and (presumably, but not quite true) Dems don’t. So if Hillary Clinton, Lieberman, or Edwards get elected and start making rumblings about Iran, calling it a clash of civilizations and all that jazz, while surrounding themselves with non-military “experts” and bullshitting like crazy, questioning the patriotism of their opponents and doing Orwellian photo ops that use the military as a cloak of honor then indeed you can call them and their supporters yellow donkeys.
I think the concept actually works for this administration but the administration is a caricature of itself by now. For general use it doesn’t work too well because there are way too many gray areas.
Prior to the current war, there was no need for anyone in particular to volunteer; for many years prior to 2003, we had a quality volunteer force that had no trouble finding enough qualified volunteers.
Right now, of course, we’re in a war that’s wearing our troops out. It’s a war that Republicans generally support, and Democrats pretty much don’t. Also, according to our President, as well as many conservative war supporters, it’s the main front in an “existential conflict,” i.e. one that our survival depends on. Democrats don’t see it that way.
So the need to volunteer for this particular war is a consequence of the GOP worldview. That is not the case with the Democratic worldview; we see a need to end the war, which vacates the need for anyone to volunteer for it.
But if you believe the future of our civilization hangs on this war, and you see the toll this war is taking on our troops, and you see us recruiting criminals and gang members and the like to sustain recruiting targets, and making liberal use of stop-loss to keep troops in the military well past the scheduled end of their service - how can you not volunteer, if you are in the proper age range and have no physical disqualification?
How can you go, “our civilization depends on winning this war, but even though our troops are suffering serious stress and hardship from repeated, extended deployments, I think I’ll just cheer from the sidelines”?
I don’t see how that makes any sense at all. If, in your worldview, this war is of paramount importance to the United States, at some point you’ve got to step up and do your part, rather than forcing the same people to go through the mill over and over again.
Did Democrats support Clinton’s actions in Yugoslavia? How about Clinton’s military strikes in Iraq? How about the war in Afghanistan?
And yet, though they did support these things (and, indeed, voted to authorize action in Iraq this time around as well) the disparity remains quite striking at the officer level, where ideological differences would manifest themselves most.
Quite simply, liberals do not join the military in great numbers no matter who is president, while conservatives and non-ideological Democrats will. And if they believe in a conflict like the war in Afghanistan, for the most part they will be cheering from the sidelines as well, regardless of the state of the military.
Listen, I will not criticize myself. I don’t think the military is a good fit for some people and it is still an all-volunteer force. But that means that most of us will at various times support a conflict we aren’t shooting in, and therefore criticism of the “yellow elephants” kind isn’t terribly germane.
Evidently you did not read my preceding post. The point was (a) the paramount importance of the conflict, combined with (b) the extreme burden on the existing military.
None of these three had that combination of factors.
So you can rationalize away your non-participation anytime you feel like it, yet criticize someone else for not serving without knowing their feelings about their abilities or even their feelings about the conflict? Indeed, oftentimes all you know about them is that they are Republican, or the son or daughter of one.
Sorry, that doesn’t wash with me. Thanks for playing yourself.
IMHO Al-Q’s attacks and methods have always seemed to be half-assed and primitive. Yes sometimes half-assed attacks work, and the 9-11 attacks one such time.
I thought I dealt with this in post #38 above. Enlisted servicemembers appear to be pretty evenly split - see this thread, while officers are largely Republican - but it is not suitable to treat each person as a “Republican” or “Democrat” independent of their life experience and the community they live in. Officers often join as very young adults, attend the military academies, and serve for longer periods of time in the military. To pretend that an 18-year-old has an inflexible political viewpoint and is not changed by the years of training and experience in military life does not make sense to me. I’d be interested in seeing what political affiliations people have before joining up - it may be that more people who already identify as Republican join the commissioned officer corps - but that fact is not in evidence.
Well, I suppose any rational argument can be construed as ‘rationalizing,’ but if one can dismiss any such argument through that device, why bother with GD? Every argument is either ‘rationalizing’ or irrational. Done.
Well, that was a fascinating discussion, but not half as fascinating as this:
Apparently, these guys were so clueless as to how to go about jihading, that the US Government had to hire someone to point them in the right direction and help egg them on. He was so successful that they actually asked HIM the lead the attack!
The political demographics of the military is beside the point. To the contrary, the point is quite limited to those able-bodied persons who (1) support El Presidente’s Global War on Terra (i.e., the current debacle in Iraq), (2) piss their pants every time the authorities announce anything that looks even remotely like it might be terra-related (and which is almost invariably overblown b.s.), and yet (3) pointedly do not volunteer to serve in the military conflict that they constantly assure us is the most existential threat to the continued existence of Western civilization ever.
Oh, and of course also the politicians who fit items (1) and (2), but fail to encourage their military-aged children to defend the nation from the terra-rists.
Incorrect. For it to work, they must support the war and the idea of its extreme importance.
Keeping in mind I don’t personally agree with this idea in general, your Clinton examples don’t work either given the criteria that have been outlined. It would’ve worked if Clinton, administration, and his supporters stressed how the Kosovo conflict was a struggle of epic importance and it would’ve helped if the war itself dragged on and we became mired in a quagmire. Then the yellow donkey accusation would have worked perfectly when faced with a Dem spewing propaganda about how important the war.
Some of your other examples don’t work because they were aerial campaigns. You would also be surprised (or maybe not) how many those on the left didn’t actually support many of these.
The reason I don’t generally support the idea is that the yellow accusation breaks down when the reasoning behind the war is muddled or otherwise good and the state of the progress is murky. Like if Clinton and the U.N. had invaded Rwanda to stop the genocide but got stuck in the morass. Or…Afghanistan in its current state.
Even if we accept that cowardice is a ghastly character flaw, rather than an exaggerated form of sanity…why should we assume that such a person has no reasoning faculties, cannot decide to support a policy for sound and appropriate reasons? Simply because someone snivels and cringes doesn’t mean he can’t think.
Call it intuition. Or common bloody sense. Same thing.
How very, very brave of you. Blasted! At grave risk to life and limb!
Particularly warmongering cowards.
Yep. Opposed this monstrous disaster from the inception, and have continued to do so through this very moment. How’s your house looking? Wouldn’t want no terra-rist homicide bombers to blow it up now, would ya? If only there were some way you could help prevent that from happening. I understand existential incontinence is no longer a barrier to enlistment.
Some might call the non-participating Republicans hypocrites. Me, I prefer to think of them as the only conceivable alternative to such a vile epithet: cowards.
Considering that I already have done more than most in this area, and in fact continue to do so, I personally will not consider any criticism directed my way in this area worthy of my consideration.
Um…no. Thats not what your cite actually says. It SAYS that they didn’t have much military experience, and the informer portrayed himself as an Egyptian with military experience. So, wisely (well, if the guy hadn’t ACTUALLY been an informer I suppose) they were asking him for advice on what they already planned to do. And the informer used his supposed military experience to build trust with the group and channel them in a direction where they could ultimately be brought to prosecution. You should actually read the article you cited (as well as the myriad other ones out there on this subject) before attempting to lampoon it.
Seriously…I don’t get the drift of this thread. This is, IMHO anyway, no joke. These guys were certainly serious about wanting to do this thing. I don’t think AQ had much to do with it…but so what? Its a bit chilling that folks like this would get together on their own to try something like this. And but for the fuckup with the video tape (which, to be honest, if you don’t know or understand the technology actually isn’t that stupid…I know a LOT of people who have tried to, say, get their porn developed at the local camera shop in years past never realizing the developers would actually LOOK at the pictures) these guys may very well have gone on and actually managed to pull something off.
Looked at from a purely proffessional perspective, 9/11 isn’t all that impressive either…except that they hit the golden BB and made (part of it) work in a fairly spectacular way. There were plenty of steps along the way where the whole thing could have fallen apart, and if it had I’m sure folks in this thread would be calling THEM ‘Bozos’ too…
