BY ADAM SMELTZKnight Ridder Newspapers
FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. - (KRT) - On two of the nation's key military bases, where young American troops get ready for war and recover from it, young Americans in uniform have mixed feelings about President Bush's wartime leadership.
Much like their civilian peers, many of the mature teenagers and budding twentysomethings who are fighting the war in Iraq question Bush's international savvy but admire his steadfast, decisive streak.
Whatever their doubts about their commander-in-chief, however, young soldiers don't think much of his Democratic opponent. They're skeptical, and often sharply derisive, about Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, whom they repeatedly call weak-kneed and too easily swayed.
"If you're running for president, I know you're going to lie," said Marine Lance Cpl. Shane Samuels, 19, of New York, who's stationed at Camp Lejeune in Jacksonville, N.C. "But, damn - this guy (Kerry) has been caught lying so many times."
Samuels, who's anticipating deployment to the Middle East next summer and has watched friends leave for yearlong tours, said "Bush jumped the gun" in Iraq.
"We elected an idiot president. ... He's like Mike Tyson," said Samuels.
Despite his misgivings about the president's intellect, he said Bush has proven himself to be more unflappable than Kerry, and he's supporting Bush's re-election bid. "Don't get me wrong ... he's a good president," Samuels said.
In two days of interviews at Camp Lejeune and Fort Bragg, an Army installation in Fayetteville, young troops said the president enjoys broad support from those in uniform. It's a backing strengthened in no small part by Bush's support for pay increases, they said.
Marine Lance Cpl. Ryan Harmon, 20, from West Virginia, returned this month to Camp Lejeune after seven months in Iraq. Although he hasn't followed politics closely, Harmon said he's supporting Bush because of the president's steady, resolute tenor.
Army Sgt. Eric Hernandez, 25, of Jersey City, N.J., said Bush's support at Fort Bragg is evident in the abundance of Bush-Cheney bumper stickers. "I haven't seen a John Kerry sign anywhere," Hernandez said.
Hernandez said he'll pick a candidate - but only after he starts studying both men's politics.
Worries over Bush's motives for going to war have weakened some troops' support. Others wish America would withdraw from Iraq.
Army Spc. William Hebb, a 23-year-old Ohioan who spent six months in Kuwait last year, said he's voting for Bush because it's unwise to switch leadership during a war. But "I'm not going to say if I like the way he's handled" the war, Hebb added.
A handful were more blunt.
"I'd probably vote for a monkey if he was running against Bush," said Spc. Chris Schrader, 20, another Ohioan based at Fort Bragg. The Iraq war, he said, was based on "the wrong reasons at the wrong time."
Likewise, said Keith Johnson, 20, "I believe all Bush really wanted is power. ... Now it's just about how we can get more power."
Johnson, a Marine from Elizabeth, N.J., expects to be deployed to the Middle East in January. He said Saddam Hussein's ouster was the Iraq war's key objective. Because that mission's been fulfilled, he said, Americans should pull out and leave Iraqis to rebuild their land on their own. Johnson is leaning toward voting for Kerry.
But Army cadet Samantha Hamm said she has her doubts about the Democrat because of his explanations of his position on Iraq.
"I don't particularly care for Kerry," said Hamm, who's enrolled in Penn State University's ROTC program. "I don't think he makes up his mind very well."
Others troops at the North Carolina bases conceded, somewhat sheepishly, that they haven't really been watching the race for the White House and know strikingly little about Kerry. With workdays much longer than eight hours, they haven't had the time, they said, adding that they'll decide before Nov. 2.
Some soldiers and Marines worry that Kerry, if elected, would withdraw troops from Iraq. That would mean that those who've been killed there died for nothing, they said.
"Then all this is in vain," said 20-year-old Marine Pfc. Scott Courtright, who'll go to Iraq in about a year.
Which isn't to say that leaving for tours of unknown duration is easy, the young warriors said.
"You get reluctant when it comes down to it - leaving my girlfriend, my family, going over there," said Marine Pfc. Nicholas Lutz, 19, of Menomonie, Wis. An undecided voter, he's scheduled to head to Iraq in about a year.
Kerry's combat experience in Vietnam, Lutz said, gives the Democrat firsthand insight that Bush lacks - and, Lutz hopes, a reluctance to send more troops to Iraq.
"I wish we'd get the hell out," said Lutz, who hails from a firmly Republican family. "The terrorist groups over there are so scattered, we don't know who we're fighting."
Lutz was the exception, though, in discussions about Kerry's status as a combat veteran. Young troops mostly said they're unconcerned with Bush's and Kerry's military records during the Vietnam War era. They're looking for a leader who's unflappable - a trait that Bush has demonstrated, they said.
"Just because a person didn't go to war doesn't mean they wouldn't be a good leader," said Courtright, whose home is in Schenectady, N.Y. "There's been many great presidents who've never been to war."
"Bush scammed out of Vietnam, but he's shown he can be a military leader," said Marine Lance Cpl. George Ryan Mehaffey, 19, of Richmond, Va.
Though he's an undecided voter, Mehaffey said he likes Bush and fully supports the war.
As for Kerry, Mehaffey said, "It's not so much that I don't think he would" complete the war effort. "I don't know if he would."
---
� 2004, Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.
Saturday, September 25, 2004
Iraqi Freedom News, The REAL military stories from Iraq
The REAL truth about Iraq
NOT what Kerry and Doom and Gloom Naysayers WANT you
to believe.
Click on the link and go to www.centcom.mil
Then click on each story.
The men and women in the US military deserve our
respect and THANKS!
Iraqi Freedom News Features
Iraqi Veterans Agency Announces Outreach and Benefits
Plan 09/24/04
Food Delivery Aids Baghdad Neighborhood 09/24/04
Mechanic Has Lots of Heart (Two Purple Ones, To Be
Exact) 09/23/04
Emergency Blood Drive Saves Soldier's Life 09/23/04
Shekhan District School Completes Renovations 09/20/04
215th FSB Dental Hygienist Helps Soldiers Smile
09/20/04
Firefighters Get Training in Baghdad 09/20/04
Long Lost Friends Reunite in Iraq 09/20/04
Iraqi Air Force Conducts First Solo Operations Mission
09/17/04
Multinational Forces Help Iraqi Ministry of Defense
get `Wired'
09/15/04
War-torn City Rebuilds in the Wake of War 09/15/04
Iraqi Forces Continue Medical Corps Recruitment
Efforts 09/14/04
Iraq Adds First Female Officer to Army's Medical Corps
09/14/04
Two More Generators Come Online in Iraq 09/14/04
Engineers Put 202 Megawatts on Iraq Electrical Grid in
Augus 09/10/04
Soldiers Give Food to Iraqis Affected by Insurgents
09/10/04
Spirit of America Shows Through for Iraqi Youth
09/10/04
Seabees and Iraqi Students Build Medical Clinic for
Iraqi National
Guard Grenade Attack 09/10/04
=====
Listen to J.R. on Talk Show America, a political conservative talk show that webcasts Mon-Fri 4-6 PM EST live on the IBC Radio Network www.ibcrn.com or 24/7 @ www.talkshowamerica.com (Recorded)
NOT what Kerry and Doom and Gloom Naysayers WANT you
to believe.
Click on the link and go to www.centcom.mil
Then click on each story.
The men and women in the US military deserve our
respect and THANKS!
Iraqi Freedom News Features
Iraqi Veterans Agency Announces Outreach and Benefits
Plan 09/24/04
Food Delivery Aids Baghdad Neighborhood 09/24/04
Mechanic Has Lots of Heart (Two Purple Ones, To Be
Exact) 09/23/04
Emergency Blood Drive Saves Soldier's Life 09/23/04
Shekhan District School Completes Renovations 09/20/04
215th FSB Dental Hygienist Helps Soldiers Smile
09/20/04
Firefighters Get Training in Baghdad 09/20/04
Long Lost Friends Reunite in Iraq 09/20/04
Iraqi Air Force Conducts First Solo Operations Mission
09/17/04
Multinational Forces Help Iraqi Ministry of Defense
get `Wired'
09/15/04
War-torn City Rebuilds in the Wake of War 09/15/04
Iraqi Forces Continue Medical Corps Recruitment
Efforts 09/14/04
Iraq Adds First Female Officer to Army's Medical Corps
09/14/04
Two More Generators Come Online in Iraq 09/14/04
Engineers Put 202 Megawatts on Iraq Electrical Grid in
Augus 09/10/04
Soldiers Give Food to Iraqis Affected by Insurgents
09/10/04
Spirit of America Shows Through for Iraqi Youth
09/10/04
Seabees and Iraqi Students Build Medical Clinic for
Iraqi National
Guard Grenade Attack 09/10/04
=====
Listen to J.R. on Talk Show America, a political conservative talk show that webcasts Mon-Fri 4-6 PM EST live on the IBC Radio Network www.ibcrn.com or 24/7 @ www.talkshowamerica.com (Recorded)
There's No Such Thing as an Illegal War
SEPT 25, 2004
By Robyn Lim
AMERICA'S allies in Iraq have repudiated United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan's argument that the recent war in Iraq was 'illegal'. Japan has asked for a 'please explain'.
When the UN Security Council proves itself not up to the job of ensuring rogue states live up to their commitments, the United States and its allies have no choice but to bypass the council. Otherwise, they will be unable to confront the intolerable risks to their security posed by the linkage among rogue states, Muslim terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.
What is 'legality' in a world that lacks a common government and enforceable rules? The reality is that 'legality' is merely realpolitik by committee - what the five permanent members of the Security Council are able to agree on.
By Mr Annan's definition, the 1999 war in Kosovo was also 'illegal' because Russia and China did not agree to it. Yet this was a 'politically correct' war because it was a humanitarian intervention. There was no US strategic interest at stake at the outset. (There soon was such an interest, however, because of then US president Bill Clinton's blunder in saying there would be no commitment of ground troops. That emboldened the Serbs to accelerate their ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Muslims, and that soon put Nato's credibility on the line.)
In the immediate aftermath of the 1990-1991 Gulf War, there was optimism that the Security Council would work as intended - as a concert of great powers willing to use force if necessary to keep the peace. But that moment of optimism faded when Russia and China were unwilling to act as part of a great power concert in relation to the 'wars of the Yugoslav succession'.
Moreover, Saddam Hussein was allowed to defy 17 resolutions of the Security Council. The world had to learn all over again what should have been learnt in relation to Germany after World War I - it is impossible to disarm a defeated state without occupying it. Members of the council, including France, were more intent on pursuing their economic and other interests in relation to Iraq than in enforcing the will of the 'international community'.
Currently, the 'international community' is failing again in relation to Iran. If Iran is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, the 'international community' is again ducking the issue. Even at this point, the Iran issue has not been sent to the Security Council, mainly because China and Russia will not agree. Iran is following where North Korea has led.
North Korea's dangerous nuclear brinkmanship has included blatant defiance of Pyongyang's commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Yet the Security Council has not even met on the issue. That's because China, which has done much to help arm North Korea, will not allow it, even though the more sensible elements in China seem to understand they have created a Frankenstein.
Small wonder the NPT, one of the more successful Cold War arms control agreements, is now rapidly unravelling. How long, one wonders, will Japan be content to rely on the US and the NPT for its nuclear security?
The US is uniquely powerful because of the collapse of countervailing Soviet power. But it is also uniquely vulnerable, as 9/11 showed. After 9/11, any US president will be driven by the fear of a nuclear weapon being exploded in an American city. Those who rail against perceived US 'unilateralism' do not understand this.
If the Security Council proves itself unable to act in relation to Iran, its relevance will continue to be eroded. In Iran, the US faces hard choices. But the threat cannot be ignored. Iran is a long-time sponsor of Muslim terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hizbollah and Islamic Jihad. It rewards the suicide bombers in Israel.
The hardline mullahs who rule in Teheran have long collaborated with North Korea and China in missile development. Indeed, Iran's Shahab 3 intermediate range missile can now threaten Israel as well as vital US and European interests in the Middle East. The Shahab 3 is said to have been fitted with an accurate Chinese navigation system, and is capable of being fitted with a nuclear warhead.
The US, with its army still bogged down in Iraq, has no palatable options in relation to Iran's nuclear ambitions. But the option of doing nothing may not be available either. The same is true for Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East. No Israeli government can hope to survive if it sits on its hands while Iran acquires nuclear weapons.
Mr Annan, by allowing the BBC to paint him into a corner saying the US-led war in Iraq is 'illegal', will help to convince even more Americans and allied governments that the UN is irrelevant. Australia's long-serving Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, is right when he says that the UN is paralysed.
The writer is professor of international relations at Nanzan University, Nagoya, Japan.
By Robyn Lim
AMERICA'S allies in Iraq have repudiated United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan's argument that the recent war in Iraq was 'illegal'. Japan has asked for a 'please explain'.
When the UN Security Council proves itself not up to the job of ensuring rogue states live up to their commitments, the United States and its allies have no choice but to bypass the council. Otherwise, they will be unable to confront the intolerable risks to their security posed by the linkage among rogue states, Muslim terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.
What is 'legality' in a world that lacks a common government and enforceable rules? The reality is that 'legality' is merely realpolitik by committee - what the five permanent members of the Security Council are able to agree on.
By Mr Annan's definition, the 1999 war in Kosovo was also 'illegal' because Russia and China did not agree to it. Yet this was a 'politically correct' war because it was a humanitarian intervention. There was no US strategic interest at stake at the outset. (There soon was such an interest, however, because of then US president Bill Clinton's blunder in saying there would be no commitment of ground troops. That emboldened the Serbs to accelerate their ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Muslims, and that soon put Nato's credibility on the line.)
In the immediate aftermath of the 1990-1991 Gulf War, there was optimism that the Security Council would work as intended - as a concert of great powers willing to use force if necessary to keep the peace. But that moment of optimism faded when Russia and China were unwilling to act as part of a great power concert in relation to the 'wars of the Yugoslav succession'.
Moreover, Saddam Hussein was allowed to defy 17 resolutions of the Security Council. The world had to learn all over again what should have been learnt in relation to Germany after World War I - it is impossible to disarm a defeated state without occupying it. Members of the council, including France, were more intent on pursuing their economic and other interests in relation to Iraq than in enforcing the will of the 'international community'.
Currently, the 'international community' is failing again in relation to Iran. If Iran is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, the 'international community' is again ducking the issue. Even at this point, the Iran issue has not been sent to the Security Council, mainly because China and Russia will not agree. Iran is following where North Korea has led.
North Korea's dangerous nuclear brinkmanship has included blatant defiance of Pyongyang's commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Yet the Security Council has not even met on the issue. That's because China, which has done much to help arm North Korea, will not allow it, even though the more sensible elements in China seem to understand they have created a Frankenstein.
Small wonder the NPT, one of the more successful Cold War arms control agreements, is now rapidly unravelling. How long, one wonders, will Japan be content to rely on the US and the NPT for its nuclear security?
The US is uniquely powerful because of the collapse of countervailing Soviet power. But it is also uniquely vulnerable, as 9/11 showed. After 9/11, any US president will be driven by the fear of a nuclear weapon being exploded in an American city. Those who rail against perceived US 'unilateralism' do not understand this.
If the Security Council proves itself unable to act in relation to Iran, its relevance will continue to be eroded. In Iran, the US faces hard choices. But the threat cannot be ignored. Iran is a long-time sponsor of Muslim terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hizbollah and Islamic Jihad. It rewards the suicide bombers in Israel.
The hardline mullahs who rule in Teheran have long collaborated with North Korea and China in missile development. Indeed, Iran's Shahab 3 intermediate range missile can now threaten Israel as well as vital US and European interests in the Middle East. The Shahab 3 is said to have been fitted with an accurate Chinese navigation system, and is capable of being fitted with a nuclear warhead.
The US, with its army still bogged down in Iraq, has no palatable options in relation to Iran's nuclear ambitions. But the option of doing nothing may not be available either. The same is true for Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East. No Israeli government can hope to survive if it sits on its hands while Iran acquires nuclear weapons.
Mr Annan, by allowing the BBC to paint him into a corner saying the US-led war in Iraq is 'illegal', will help to convince even more Americans and allied governments that the UN is irrelevant. Australia's long-serving Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, is right when he says that the UN is paralysed.
The writer is professor of international relations at Nanzan University, Nagoya, Japan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)