We need to challenge our elected representatives to abandon the careerist attitudes of the professional officer corps which has led us into this Mesopotamian morass. Why should our representatives expect the officers to speak out or resign in protest of totally stupid policy when our representatives refuse to speak and oppose that stupid policy themselves. The officers are in a direct chain of command to the person seeking that stupid policy. Our representatives constitute an independent and equal enterprise which can stop the policy. I thought that both our representatives and our officers took oaths to defend the Constitution. Either stand up and become accountable or leave the public service you claim you are giving.
Posted by PrahaPartizan at August 30, 2007 04:35 PM"The Army is almost broken... by a war with no end." You raise an excellent point, which is that those in the military are being used as cannon fodder by a most uncaring administration. It would be most instructive for liberals to recall the words that were spoken by Lt. Ehren Watada at the Veterans for Peace convention last summer in Seattle when he said, among other things,
"Today, I speak with you about a radical idea. It is born from the very concept of the American soldier [or service member]. It became instrumental in ending the Vietnam War-but it has been long since forgotten. The idea is this: that to stop an illegal and unjust war, the soldiers can choose to stop fighting it."
"Now it is not an easy task for the soldier. For he or she must be aware that they are being used for ill-gain. They must hold themselves responsible for individual action. They must remember duty to the Constitution and the people supersedes the ideologies of their leadership. The soldier must be willing to face ostracism by their peers, worry over the survival of their families, and of course the loss of personal freedom. They must know that resisting an authoritarian government at home is equally important to fighting a foreign aggressor on the battlefield."
"The American soldier must rise above the socialization that tells them authority should always be obeyed without question. Rank should be respected but never blindly followed."
Watada recalled the words of a literary icon: "Mark Twain once remarked, 'Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and inexcusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country...' By this, each and every American soldier, marine, airman, and sailor is responsible for their actions. The freedom to choose is only one that we can deny ourselves."
The lieutenant went on to remind the veterans [of whom I am one] that "The oath we take swears allegiance not to one man but to a document of principles and laws designed to protect the people. Enlisting in the military does not relinquish one's right to seek the truth-neither does it excuse one from rational thought nor the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. 'I was only following orders' is never an excuse."
I believe that there is not one superfluous word in the above excerpted speech that was given by Lt. Watada. This administration does not care that these soldiers are, as Watada has said, being used for ill-gain and the Army does not seem to care that the troops are being chopped up and blown up for no justifiable reason, therefore, as the lieutenant has said, it is up to the soldiers, just as it was up to the soldiers during the Vietnam War [as verified by the incredibly moving documentary Sir! No Sir!], to stop fighting it. Otherwise, more of them will be returning to this country killed, maimed and crippled in order to justify the lies that they were given by their government.
Posted by Erroll at August 30, 2007 04:55 PMThe Army isn't broken -- they've got installations all around the globe with tons of equipment and many more soldiers. All we're seeing is what the Army and USMC were willing to redeploy to Iraq. Which wasn't very much, hence the drafting of National Guard units and equipment (one way to keep the military equipment requistions off the books). The US has been essentially running a bloated peace time army, etc. Several times more than what is needed for a quick, temporary response to an attack and not good for much else.
So, our fearful leaders have a choice to make 1) put the country on a war footing with a draft like Gen Sanchez recommends 2) strip all those military installations of equipment and personnel or 3) recognize the folly of supporting the MIC for sixty years and call it quits. One last option, "stay the course" and pretend were "winning."
Posted by Marie at August 30, 2007 05:12 PMIt wasn't the GOP who led us into Vietnam, though Eisenhower did bear some responsibility. Ours is a culture of militarism, perhaps related to the cultures of the Germany, Irish and English immigrants that our country's predominant bases came from.
Many Americans won't hesitate to go to war on flimsy rationales. It's just that flimsy rationales limit our staying power in occupational situations, even in third world conflicts like Vietnam where our weaponry was greater, we lost no major battles and outkilled them by about 40 to 1 ratios.
We are pawns in these power games, partly because our schools are sufficiently dumbed down to provide the gruntiest cannon fodder and partly because of the way battle is glorified here.... Plus, for some, regional economic disparities make the military the best way up the ladder.
The only way to effectively counter it is to take up arms and actively fight against the monied powers, an act of treason. Scary, but I see no remaining course but to accept it, which is what a majority have done.
Posted by Kevin Hayden at August 30, 2007 08:09 PMIf the war is such a great idea, how come the chimp doesn't do some recruiting commercials?
They could show him standing on a high school picnic table handing out signing bonus cash.
McLame and Loserman could be on each side of him holding the money bags.
Posted by TIKI AL at August 30, 2007 08:15 PMTiki, too hot in the city tonight. Lieberman is a sitting Senator and a Committee Chair. Your candidate is back in Conn. making money. Big victory in August didn't hold up in November when Democrats everywhere were winning.
Remember this:
In his famous Dick Cavett Show appearance, Kerry said, "There is no interest on the part of the North Vietnamese to try to massacre the people once people have agreed to withdraw."
And this one from a Democrat running for president this year...
Rep. Christopher Dodd claimed in 1975, "The greatest gift our country can give to the Cambodian people is peace, not guns. And the best way to accomplish that goal is by ending military aid now."
Both were wrong then. Cambodia saw the killing fields, 2 years, 2 million deaths later, did Chris Dodd ever apologize for his misguided comments? Did JF Kerry ever regret his comments on the Cavett Show? I saw a letter Sen. Kerry wrote on 08/07/07 making this comment "Mr. Taranto mistakenly views the violence after 1973 as a direct result of our withdrawal. In fact, the violence arose from the conditions that led us to withdraw: a Vietnamese civil war we couldn't stop supported by a Cambodian insurgency we couldn't bomb into submission. It's horrifying that so many South Vietnamese suffered. But, even accepting Mr. Taranto's estimate of 165,000 Vietnamese deaths -- double that of most academic sources -- this is a significant decrease from the preceding eight years when 450,000 civilians and 1.1 million soldiers were killed."
The thing about it specifically the bombing into submission part...Between 1972 and 1975, America's Congress passed a series of pieces of legislation that strangled the Republic of South Vietnam of resources and blocked any hope of an American air campaign.... These included the Second Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1973, which blocked funding to 'support directly or indirectly combat activities in or over Cambodia, Laos, North Vietnam or South Vietnam'; the Continuing Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1974, and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1973, which went so far as to prevent third-party countries from assisting the South Vietnamese so long as they received American aid.
JF Kerry is mistaken again. In 1971, the North Vietnamese were beaten back fairly well. In 1972, when we withdrew the majority of our land forces without having many of our soldiers shot in the back, the South Vietnamese government was quite able to defend itself. All they needed was air support. We provided it to push back the Easter Offensive, then the North hurried to the Paris Peace table and quickly signed a treaty. When they broke the treaty, Our Democratic Congress had legislated our air support away. We had agreements to provide support, but, Democrats wouldn't let us stand by our words. They decimated the worlds opinion of Americans as upstanding peoples who knew their duty and would honor their agreements.
peter, peter, peter...
"They decimated the worlds opinion of Americans as upstanding peoples who knew their duty and would honor their agreements."
That damage is infinitely small compared to the damage done by the war itself. That REALLY hurt the US standing in the world.
As is the present war.
this is not a war..it is an occupation in a land where we have created a living hell..it is not about terrorism it is about our need for oil in the future
Posted by dennis at August 31, 2007 02:52 AMparadox I think you need to take some time off...
I regard myself as a good Dem, a critical thinker, and a patriot. The last 6 years have been the most disappointing of my life.
I don't know what's going on in your personal life, but the tone of your posts is beginning more and more hysterical...when you go far as to call Petraeus a heinous animal you degrade the sophistication of the debate on TLC...and play right into the hands of the morally bankrupt Right that like to label liberals haters.
If you have ever carried a weapon for this country and taken human life (as Petraeus has) you will understand that no soldier can tolerate the death of a subordinate or comrade...it's like losing a child.
If you want a perspective of Petraeus that hasn't been filtered by the MSM or the Right, try reading
In the Company of Soldiers by Rick Atkinson...you'll feel better about Petraeus and the military in general.
Five cents please...
Posted by Roy Batty at August 31, 2007 03:54 AMroy..i think it's two cents
the army and it's generals are in the war business..it's what they do ..and it's what some of them live for..like patten..some of them love it...i have all the respect for the military..i served..war is why we have them
Posted by dennis at August 31, 2007 04:45 AMOur Democratic Congress had legislated our air support away.
And why do you suppose that was peter?
It didn't bode well for the Nixon Administration when the DoD did not cooperate with Sen. Proxmire's Armed Services committee and withheld all information on Operation Menu. You remember correctly petey, 4 years of secretive bombing runs on Cambodia. Congress and the American people were just a little furious.
It also violated Cambodia's neutrality. The secret bombing of Cambodia was the straw that broke the camel's back. Prince Sihanouk knew what Nixon was doing and turned a blind eye to it, as long as it stayed along the border region.
More bombs were dropped during Operation Menu than during WWII.
We got rid of Sihanouk in 1970 and replaced him with a puppet general, Lon Nol, this action destabilized Cambodia.
This was the opening that the Khmer Rouge wanted.
So in essence, American military intervention brought about the killing fields.
Wonder what would have happened if we would have let Cambodia keep its neutrality and the Prince his power?
By this time Watergate was getting all the big news, this was the secondary story on capitol hill at the time.
You think that Nixon was going to get cooperation from Congress by this time?
peter, I would suggest you quit the blantant lying about Vietnam. If you lived it then you know what happened. I was pretty young, but did read the newspapers of the day. My older brother served there.
We realize your Vietnam analogies are an attempt to justify further involvement in Iraq.
Take it elsewhere.
At least the brain dead rightists like peter the GOoPer clown finally understand that the operative analogy IS Vietnam, even if their brains are of course too completely poisoned to reason the comparison out sensibly. But with such limited functioning semi-retards, any level of "progress" is worth noting.
The Army and Marines cannot learn from past mistakes, and don't have to---our profoundly militarist nation forgives all and spends whatever necessary to get the imperial stormtroops back into fighting trim for the next sham "liberation" or "defense" of Murika. Both parties now want to EXPAND the size of the imperial troop contingent! Only economic collapse could change this, and even that would have no long term effect.
It's hard not to conclude that the ordinary thinking person in this sham militarist "democracy" is powerless. Keep the Bread and Circuses coming, monied elite patricians, the plebes love 'em! Why are we not throwing atheists into the NASCAR ring to be run down to the guffaws and delight of the nation's "conservatives"?
Posted by euzoius at August 31, 2007 07:07 AMpants pissing peter, go fight in the current quagmire in Iraq before bloviating about Vietnam
Posted by Gay Veteran at August 31, 2007 07:24 AMDon't blame the military for this. They do what the politicians want them to do. The American people that support this occupation are responsible for this mess.
Posted by JohnT at August 31, 2007 07:33 AM7: Great and accurate post on Viet Nam.
If McLame and Pat Buchanan repeat a lie often enough the little bed wetters sleeping in their kool-aid swamps believe it.
Posted by TIKI AL at August 31, 2007 08:46 AMIf you have ever carried a weapon for this country and taken human life (as Petraeus has) you will understand that no soldier can tolerate the death of a subordinate or comrade...it's like losing a child.
Petraeus is a career military bureaucrat in an intensely political environment. My guess is he is as personally removed from the deaths of American troops as a CEO is from the livelihoods he destroys in mass layoffs.
Grunts who serve together, especally in combat, develop incredibly close bonds; but to claim that Cheney's latest useful-idiot puppet-uniform is chock-full of unquestionable integrity because he feels such a bond for each of the 150k+ soldiers under him, is very dubious.
Posted by Mike G at August 31, 2007 09:25 PM