NPR asked an interesting question today. "What does it mean to support our troops". My answer seems simple and often it is the most tossed about term, but in a nut shell I feel the best way we can support our troops is to bring the kids home. There are plenty of Neo-hippies who use that term alot, but I think what I mean goes a bit deeper. If we deploy troops with a faulty or incomplete knowledge of the nationalism of it's people's we are planning on wasting lives. From way back to the 'John Company' the arabs had been treated as a client people. Did we actually expect to go in with military might and not be cast as invaders? This little bit of knowledge and insight is what we pay for in our Government.
Do not get me wrong, all you neo-hippie and ultra-patriot types, I think Saddam had to go. He may not have been doing Business with Al-Quaeda, but only because they weren't buying what he had to sell, but he was selling to Hamas, Darfur, or any regime with liquid cash and an arab cause. Unfortunately we would have been better served by toppling the Government from the inside, while our force, that is much smaller than it was in the early '90s, wrapped up whatever is on their plate at the time.
So in the end to support our troops we should praise their efforts to bring themselves and their brothers and sisters of the sword home alive. We also must hold our Government accountable not to take the loyalty of these brave souls for granted, nor should their sacrafices be wasted as they go before us and defend our way life.

The news of Rumi's resignation went over pretty quiet in the shop on thursday. I figured at least Rey would be dancing a jig, one of his favorite people had gotten fired. Me I am not a big fan of the Rumi. I think it was telling when he got into his crotch to dump our aircraft carriers because he thought they were too slow, and used too much resources to keep them safe while they were underway. It also showed GW's leadership ability, or lack of, when there was no signs of him quietly stepping in. All through that episode I kept thinking how did this guy get to be SecDef if he didn't understand the strategic value of an aircraft carrier on station. Clinton looked at downgrading the number carriers in our fleet when he was pres. So he should have known, if Defense was he forte, that 13 was the magic number because of refueling, overhauls and workups. So I really wasn't all to suprised when he decided to start a fight in Iraq before mission was accmplished in Afganistan.
Some may say that the goal was accomplished, but meeting ones objective does not a mission make. Mission accomplished means people come home, and not just so they can go back in a year.
My fear with the turn over, and the only logical conclusion as I can see from my limited amount of data, is with the Dem's in the house many will seek to return troops too early. I remind, fair reader, to the call for a timeline, and/or complete withdrawl in the '04 elections. I fear what will happen will turn Iraq into a true Vietnam. After the withdrawl, or maybe when troop strength become low enough to become over run, Iran and Syria will step up their import of insurgents and turn Iraq into a sunni country. Of course Iran and Syria could easily make this country cease to exist. In the end it will be another ugly spot for America. Another ugly to bring forth when America tries to do the right thing. Only by Iraq becoming fed up with the Iran and Syria butting into it their politics and placing their country and jeopardy can Iraq truly save themselves. When I say Iraq I don't mean their Gov.. It is the people that rule the Gov., if this were untrue than a tolitarian Gov. would not need to expend so much resources to keep the unruly in line.