From: "Phil Payne" 


"Mark"  wrote in message
news:45aef5f6$1{at}w3.nls.net...

> I cannot ascertain why John thinks Ledeen is "blaming" the troops for
> failure in that column. Our troops do what is directed of them, if they're
> sitting around here and there, it is not because they choose to do so, it
is
> because of absence of orders otherwise.

I think that very unlikely.

They are facing the worst possible conditions imaginable every time they go
out on the streets.  Anyone could be an enemy - any building could house a
sniper.  Any bundle of rags could be a bomb.  A deadly attack could come at
any instant. Just like our troops in Northern Ireland during the Troubles.
But the enemy these guys face care nothing for their own lives - regarding
death during such an attack as martyrdom.

It must be absolutely terrifying, and their commanders must be very well
aware of the intense psychological burden the grunts are carrying.  All
they are doing, sitting in safety in their air-conditioned megabases, is
simply taking their R&R in theatre.  Surrounded by an increasingly
hostile Muslim world, there is just nowhere local that's safe to do that,
and bringing them home between duties is too costly.

Personally, I don't begrudge them respite from the terror they face on
patrol and I believe, if they have air-conditioning, steaks, phones to call
home, then they deserve them.

Let's not forget what terrorists do.  They instill terror.  Anyone who
faces it professionally deserves long breaks. And let's also not forget how
many tours some have already done.

If Shrub had said he was sending 20,000 troops out so the guys already
there could take longer breaks, I'd have supported him.

That was the thing that first struck me about that article.  But the author
is certiifiable when he talks about taking on Iran.  You think you've seen
religious fanaticism fuel an insurgence in Iraq?  Don't take on the
Persians.  Greater empires than yours have failed.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5