Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Chode2235

Letter to the editor of the New Yorker

8 posts in this topic

Below is a letter to the editor I sent to the New Yorker, interested in your thoughts:

Dear Editor;

After reading George Packer's comment on "Obama's Iraq Problem" I feel compelled to pen these thoughts to you in hopes that your wonderful magazine can regain its tradition of wonderful and logical reporting. Mr. Packer makes the claim that because violence in Iraq is down that somehow it becomes a political liability for Obama, in that he has insisted that we bring our troops home with immediacy. Not only does Packer's argument undermine and ignore the moral reasons for ending the war as soon as possible, but it flies in the face of logic. Mr. Packer never addresses the linchpin on his own argument: How does a drop in violence in Iraq imply that U.S. and coalition forces need to remain there longer? Wouldn't the opposite be true?

If in fact violence is significantly down and Iraq is returning to normal, wouldn't that imply that Obama could more easily bring the combat brigades home at the one a month pace, or faster? Until now the concern -- and primary argument against a rapid withdrawal -- has been whether Iraq would fall apart in the power vacuum caused by departing U.S. forces. If violence is down and Iraq more stable then Obama's proposition becomes much easier to execute, and it makes Obama look like even more of a visionary. If anything, it becomes another opportunity for Obama not a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like trolling with Rapalas. I haven't tried it with Obamas yet. Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like trolling with Rapalas. I haven't tried it with Obamas yet. Good luck.

Best line of the day.....thanks Gunflint smile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

obama aint bringing the troops home. dont hold your hopes too high. not until the generals in the field say so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like in Article 2, section 2? I must have missed the part about the generals being in charge of the army and navy, not the commander and chief.

It is a classic line, thanks for making me laugh. I wish I was better at photoshop, I would have a new avatar.

-----

Congrats on the 1000th post TJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like in Article 2, section 2? I must have missed the part about the generals being in charge of the army and navy, not the commander and chief.

It is a classic line, thanks for making me laugh. I wish I was better at photoshop, I would have a new avatar.

-----

Congrats on the 1000th post TJ.

ok let me reframe my statement. he wont pull out any troops till the field commanders assure him it would be safe to do. a president obama has different issues than candidate obama. its easier to leave troops there than to pull them out and deal with the unkown. if he does that and iraq goes into chaos he would be blamed. and he knows this. he already is fudging on that a little.

1000th posts. well, well, well. i did it. i really did it. now how do i go about collecting my prize

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is going to have to end the same way that other (no comparison intended) nasty conflict ended. It is my recolection that it finally ended when congress finally voted to stop funding the mess. That's the way wars end now. And the only way they end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0