"You weren't there, so how would you know?" is the common way to shut up an argument by an opponenet. There are many examples: Chickenhawks, neo-cons, etc. However, here is someone who has been there twice, and is there right now.
You cannot dismiss it out of hand, because his presence ensures his credibility to a greater degree than any other argument can.
Before we surrender, let's listen to those who are there. The fact that he is an NCO and not an officer seems to extend his credibility, since he is less likely to be politically correct, but speak the truth as he knows it.
Give it a read.
1 comment:
The reason that I think settting a timetable is surrender, is what happens when your objectives are not met, but the timetable says that you have to go. Do you go with a rigid timetable, or do you go with the objective, in which case you never needed a timetable anyways.
I disagree with your contention that his letter does not undercut Murtha. He says that we are doing a lot of good and accomplishing a lot. That is not what Murtha says, who believes we are the sole source of the problem.
You are the one who turned my onto "Imperial Grunts." It has been ten years since I was on active duty, but the soldiers in the book are exactly what I remember. They want to accomplish the job. We need to give them all of the tools and support that they require to get it done.
Conversely, if they say that we won't be able to do the job, I will be the first to scream that we need to get them out.
Post a Comment