Blastoff, What a shock, the Russians have been supplying Saddam with weapons? Gosh, I guess the USA should have sat back and let a country like Iraq get its hands on Nukes, thus becoming another North Korea. This will all boil over after the war.....if....and this is a big if. The US decides to be benevolent and let Russia and the rest of the gang in on the rebuilding of Iraq. IMHO, the US should work with all the countries in this instance. Keeping the lions share for the USA, Britain, and Australia, of course. DD
Those are actually the practical realities of project management. Bush Sr. orchestrated the consent of the UN against the very same person and regime, so it certainly can be done. I’m not even saying that support of the UN per se was necessary, only that of a legitimising broader based coalition that included key stakeholders in the ME. I also think you’re being a little too cynical when you say Russia, China and France would ONLY have considered their economic interests. I suspect that domestic political issues and some straight political gamesmanship were bigger issues. I’m not claiming their perfect, but I am saying that you have to make and effort to work with them. Stakeholder groups are not full of perfect, shining, happy people, as I’m sure you know. Yes people come with different agendas and it is the job of the PM to tactfully smoke out those agendas and take them off the table, while clearly defining what the agenda for the project is and why is it a good thing for everybody to buy into. I bet you dollars to doughnuts you’ve even lead meeting like this. Almost never, particularly in an environment where there are egos and strong personalities, will ultimatums work. “You are either with us or against us,” was not an attempt to bring people on side. It was an attempt to blow people off. “You either kiss our ass or you’re out,” and of course nobody can accept that so right away they are out, at least psychologically. (I suppose the possibility exists that this was just a display of complete ignorance about how to build a team, but if these guys are as unsophisticated as that then we are in some serious trouble.) Yes history will be the final judge, but history is unfolding as we speak. Are the problems that are coming up now things that could have and should have been foreseen and addressed in the lead up to this war? Are they really surprised that the Iraqis haven’t been meeting them with open arms? If so then they haven’t done their research on the context that they are moving into. Many if not most of the people on this board could have told them that before the war even started. If this is truly all the work they’ve done on finding out who their client is and what he wants, if in fact they are really doing this project for themselves and not for the Iraqis, then we have the makings of a monumental disaster on our hands. Do I know this is the case? No, and of course there is a whole lot that none of us know about the plans and what’s going on behind the scenes, but from where I sit this is what I see.
Actually, The Iraqis ARE meeting them with open arms, when they are not faced with Saddam's death squads at their backs. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=564&e=25&u=/nm/20030331/ts_nm/iraq_shatra_dc_2 http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/01/war101.xml http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/01/wbasra01.xml http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2484430 http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20030401-56007896.htm http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2525679,00.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/01/wbasra01.xml DD
Originally posted by BlastOff That you are. And when you have disagreed it certainly hasn't been with extreme hate like some of the cavemen here with an opposite view. It is to be commended. To answer your question, I certainly am not informed enough to explain the mechanisms in detail, yet even a fool like myself knows that companies in the states will definitely get some of the contracts that will be required to rebuild the country. If Iraq will become the modern Japan as someone else speculated, I would think that again many companies in the states would be involved in that country making that transition too. It depends on who's financing. If it's US dollars financing that part of the reconstruction (during 'occupation' or whatever it will be), it is logical that only US companies get the contract. If it is Iraqi oil money, it must be handled by Iraqi authorities in an open bidding process ASAP. As has been speculated, it is likely that some Iraqis will be pro-US and other will despise us. Who knows who will be making the decisions on each bid? If Iraq is truly democratic and capitalistic, we will have little influence unless we have more to offer the Iraqis moving forward. I could be missing something here...never have done much research on nation-building. I also don't know the details of how the Administration will implement the rebulding process. Guess we'll see. To tell truth, like you I will rejoice at Saddammie's removal. However, I will have a problem with this war long after many of us have forgotten about it. Understood. Many 'pro-War' folks will too. It is a strange war and strange time. Almost makes one nostalgic about the comprehendible Cold War and MAD...well...maybe not.
The Iraqis ARE meeting them with open arms, when they are not faced with Saddam's death squads at their backs. Careful, this could be more propaganda from the Pentagon. I have seen other articles stating that the US troups are not being received as expected. I suspect that most Iraqis are happy to be out from under Saddam's jack boot, but are cautious to see how their new master will treat them.
In interviews I’ve heard recently Iraqi’s have said, “We’re glad you came, but when the war is over we want you to leave.” (I couldn’t quickly find a link.) My guess is that this is a common sentiment. They don’t like Saddam, but they don’t trust the US. I would call that a qualified welcome. Once Saddam is gone, if only the US is in charge, what will be the response then? Will the US be able to act quickly in such a way as to win the hearts, minds and trust of the Iraqi’s, or will mistrust, misunderstanding, and outside interference scuttle the project? I hope for the former but don’t see much evidence of this kind of foresight and planning to date. We’re only the battle of Baghdad away from knowing the answer. I have to get back to making my million now. You’ve already made yours so you can chat all day. I’ve got some dues to pay but I’ll be back this evening.
MacBeth, I am extremely busy these days (not to mention having to find time to follow the damn Rockets ). I finally come around to read the "foundation" part of your opening post. I will get to the rest of it. It is very likely that some people have already made similar responses. If so, please let me know and I don't want to make you repeat yourself. I gathered that you are in the Historical Studies field. I am coming from the Analytic background. So it should not be surprising that we come to these problems in slightly different angles. I am no history expert, not even close. I won't debate with you in historical facts. Argument/conceptual analysis is my cup of tea. I'll mostly stay with what I am familiar with. The two foundational tenets you stated are: (1) the high human (not just financial) cost of wars, and (2) the danger of self-righteous acts. And you came to these tenets mainly from historical reflections. I am in general agreement with you here. But it needs some qualifications. 1. Historical argument (argument based on principles derived from historical patterns) is a breed of what I call evidential inference. It is different from logical inference in that it can never be 100% certain. It always involves subjective judgments where you cannot spell out all the objective criteria on which you make these judgments. Let me say this right off. I am in on way diminishing historical arguments. In fact, most of our daily reasoning falls into this type. Our whole court system relies almost solely on it. And many times it is the basis for deciding life and death matters. What I am saying is that historical arguments are not absolute and they should not be absolutized. Each historical case needs to be considered in its only merits (which I know you have done in the rest of your post). For example, the fact that most wars in history were initiated by tyrants and benefitted only the tyrants at the cost of many innocent lives does not prove that ALL wars are like that. I certainly agree that the historical pattern does have the force to make us think twice (maybe a lot more times) before we decide to make war. Another example, the fact that most civilizations in history were ruled by dictatorship does not prove that democracy (a very late development in history) is just a fluke, or that dictatorship should be the norm of government. 2. Self-righteous people are dangerous, especially those who meddle with other people's business. I agree, but not absolutely. In the thread about prayers a few day ago, I was actually very surprised to find that you defended the right and motive of the evangelicals in "proselytizing" people of other religions. "Evangelism" is certainly a form of self-righteous act telling other people what is right. Considering oneself to be the "moral authority" is not necessarily wrong, not even when the person does not always live up to her moral standard. (Being a hyprocrite does not means that what he preaches is necessarily wrong. It does make his credibility shakier.) In fact, aren't we all believe that we are right and try, to some degree, to convert those who don't agree with us? Why are you and I posting arguments? Just for fun? (Maybe ) I have big problem with those people who assert that George Bush and Saddam Husein, or the Bush administration and the Saddam regime are on the same moral level. Even if we, for the sake of argument, grant that Bush is a big bad hyprocrite, he is still far from being comparable to Saddam. I know you are not arguing that. But to say that the US or anyone else in the world has no right to tell the Iraqis they have a wrong government is ludicrous. Also, similar to point #1 above, even if the US does not have a good track record in terms of their moral behaviors in the past, it still does not prove that what they do now is wrong. You seems to assume that the only moral claim the US have is her "might" and thereby labeling the war as an instance of the "might is right" mentality. I think that's an unfair characterization. Our moral claim is not only based on our economic and technological strength. To me, the only role "might" plays in this war is that it gives us the needed resources to take action on our moral claim. Without the resources, we may "condemn" Saddam all we want, it wouldn't make any real difference. For example, we normally don't meddle with our neighbors how they teach their children even if we do not agree with their parenting philosophies. To go around the neigborhood "correcting" everybody's parenting style is not only annoying, it's almost dangerous. But if I know that my neighbor is physically and psychological abusing their children, and teaching their children to harm other children, possibly mine, then I think I have the moral obligation (not just the right) to intervene. (BTW, I am aware of the over-zealous social worker/child protection agent who needlessly nullify some parents' parental rights and takes their children from them.) In this case, the degree of evil my neigbor inflict on their children, and possbly others, warrant overriding the normal "mind your own business" principle. 3. The delineation of such entities as "nation" "people" etc. is fluid. Although you did not state it directly in your two foudational paragraphs, you implied that one nation should have no right to go change another nation's internal matter. Besides the "moral obligation" argument above, I contend that national boundaries are not so fixed (from the historical point of view) as can be the absolute foundation on which to build a philosophy of international relation. For example, is Tibet a part of China? Does it really matter in the moral sense? Is it less evil for the Chinese government to oppress the Tibetans if it is a part of China, and more evil if it is not? Are you saying that if a group of people live within an arbitrary boundary of a nation, they can do anything to anybody within that boundary and anyone outside has no right to intervene? 4. This is a minor point. I share with you the distaste of people making emotional non-substantive name-calling mud-slinging kind of "argument." Yet, I don't think you should dismiss all emotional claims on moral issues. For example, citing Saddam's repulsive acts is not necesarily an "emotional" tactic. Emotion/feeling is a BIG part of our moral intuition. After all, apart from divine revelation (which I know you don't believe), the bottomline of many moral standards are often "how we feel" about something as human beings. The stronger we feel about certain act, the more "evil" or "good" we attribute to that act. --------------- OK, these are the philosophical side of my response. They do not justify the war. They are just qualifications of your foundational claims.
This is THE REASON that the neo-cons wanted the war with Iraq. While in and of itself, geopolitical stability in the Middle East is a very laudable goal, I do not remember Bush actually stating this as one of his reasons for the war. (I could be wrong since he has stated so many ) This brings me to a point which really bugs me. Making war with another country is very serious business. I do not mean to imply that Bush has not taken this war seriously but ... Bush has not taken seriously the need to make the case for the war with the American people and the rest of the world. In particular, I do not think that he has given all of his reasons. Looking at the U.S. National Security Strategy (released to Congress in September 2002 after his UN speech), the US will in the near future actively pursue rogue nations (Syria, Iran, Lybia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt) to achieve "Pax Americana". Given the new Pax Americana policy, disarming Saddam is not as important as removing him from power. This implies the dance that Bush did with the UN Security Council and their weapons inspection teams was just a pretext to war. To this end, Bush was not telling us or the rest of the world the whole truth about his reasons for war. This is especially disturbing to me due to the seriousness of war. This may be also one of the reasons why Bush failed to win the world's public opinion wrt this war. Getting back to thread's main topic, I have a bit trouble with everybody seeming to have their own set of justifications for (or against) the war. We should all be more or less on the same page. The American public has had a consensus opinion about other wars we have fought. Why not this one? IMO, it all gets back to the fact that Bush has never really made the case clear to all. He mentions human rights issues to get buy-in from the Left and he mentions WMD to get buy-in from the Right. And so forth and so on. But Bush may be keeping his real reasons close to his chest : implementing Pax Americana and all that implies.
No Worries, now there's something I can actually agree with you on. Bush's case for war was to muddled and there were to many reasons he gave for going to war. I also suspect that the neo-cons are a big part of it, although on the other hand, Bill Clinton also wanted to disarm Iraq, he just didn't have the guts to go against the UN. So it's not solely a George W. Bush thing. As far as Pax Americana, can you explain exactly what you mean by that?
from another thread here : http://www.voice4change.org/stories/showstory.asp?file=030228~to.asp Blood Money By William Rivers Pitt t r u t h o u t | Perspective Thursday 27 February 2003 "In the counsels of Government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes." - President Dwight Eisenhower, January 1961. George W. Bush gave a speech Wednesday night before the Godfather of conservative Washington think tanks, the American Enterprise Institute. In his speech, Bush quantified his coming war with Iraq as part of a larger struggle to bring pro-western governments into power in the Middle East. Couched in hopeful language describing peace and freedom for all, the speech was in fact the closest articulation of the actual plan for Iraq that has yet been heard from the administration. In a previous truthout article from February 21, the ideological connections between an extremist right-wing Washington think tank and the foreign policy aspirations of the Bush administration were detailed. The Project for a New American Century, or PNAC, is a group founded in 1997 that has been agitating since its inception for a war with Iraq. PNAC was the driving force behind the drafting and passage of the Iraqi Liberation Act, a bill that painted a veneer of legality over the ultimate designs behind such a conflict. The names of every prominent PNAC member were on a letter delivered to President Clinton in 1998 which castigated him for not implementing the Act by driving troops into Baghdad. PNAC has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to a Hussein opposition group called the Iraqi National Congress, and to Iraq's heir-apparent, Ahmed Chalabi, despite the fact that Chalabi was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court to 22 years in prison on 31 counts of bank fraud. Chalabi and the INC have, over the years, gathered support for their cause by promising oil contracts to anyone that would help to put them in power in Iraq. Most recently, PNAC created a new group called The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Staffed entirely by PNAC members, The Committee has set out to "educate" Americans via cable news connections about the need for war in Iraq. This group met recently with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice regarding the ways and means of this education. Who is PNAC? Its members include: Vice President Dick Cheney, one of the PNAC founders, who served as Secretary of Defense for Bush Sr.; I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's top national security assistant; Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, also a founding member, along with four of his chief aides including; Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, arguably the ideological father of the group; Eliot Abrams, prominent member of Bush's National Security Council, who was pardoned by Bush Sr. in the Iran/Contra scandal; John Bolton, who serves as Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security in the Bush administration; Richard Perle, former Reagan administration official and present chairman of the powerful Defense Policy Board; Randy Scheunemann, President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, who was Trent Lott's national security aide and who served as an advisor to Rumsfeld on Iraq in 2001; Bruce Jackson, Chairman of PNAC, a position he took after serving for years as vice president of weapons manufacturer Lockheed-Martin, and who also headed the Republican Party Platform subcommittee for National Security and Foreign Policy during the 2000 campaign. His section of the 2000 GOP Platform explicitly called for the removal of Saddam Hussein; William Kristol, noted conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, a magazine owned along with the Fox News Network by conservative media mogul Ruppert Murdoch. The Project for the New American Century seeks to establish what they call 'Pax Americana' across the globe. Essentially, their goal is to transform America, the sole remaining superpower, into a planetary empire by force of arms. A report released by PNAC in September of 2000 entitled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' codifies this plan, which requires a massive increase in defense spending and the fighting of several major theater wars in order to establish American dominance. The first has been achieved in Bush's new budget plan, which calls for the exact dollar amount to be spent on defense that was requested by PNAC in 2000. Arrangements are underway for the fighting of the wars. The men from PNAC are in a perfect position to see their foreign policy schemes, hatched in 1997, brought into reality. They control the White House, the Pentagon and Defense Department, by way of this the armed forces and intelligence communities, and have at their feet a Republican-dominated Congress that will rubber-stamp virtually everything on their wish list. The first step towards the establishment of this Pax Americana is, and has always been, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the establishment of an American protectorate in Iraq. The purpose of this is threefold: 1) To acquire control of the oilheads so as to fund the entire enterprise; 2) To fire a warning shot across the bows of every leader in the Middle East; 3) To establish in Iraq a military staging area for the eventual invasion and overthrow of several Middle Eastern regimes, including some that are allies of the United States. Another PNAC signatory, author Norman Podhoretz, quantified this aspect of the grand plan in the September 2002 issue of his journal, 'Commentary'. In it, Podhoretz notes that the regimes, "that richly deserve to be overthrown and replaced, are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil. At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as 'friends' of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority, whether headed by Arafat or one of his henchmen." At bottom, for Podhoretz, this action is about "the long-overdue internal reform and modernization of Islam." This casts Bush's speech to AEI on Wednesday in a completely different light. Weapons of mass destruction are a smokescreen. Paeans to the idea of Iraqi liberation and democratization are cynical in their inception. At the end of the day, this is not even about oil. The drive behind this war is ideological in nature, a crusade to 'reform' the religion of Islam as it exists in both government and society within the Middle East. Once this is accomplished, the road to empire will be open, ten lanes wide and steppin' out over the line. At the end of the day, however, ideology is only good for bull sessions in the board room and the bar. Something has to grease the skids, to make the whole thing worthwhile to those involved, and entice those outside the loop to get into the game. Thus, the payout. It is well known by now that Dick Cheney, before becoming Vice President, served as chairman and chief executive of the Dallas-based petroleum corporation Halliburton. During his tenure, according to oil industry executives and United Nations records, Halliburton did a brisk $73 million in business with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. While working face-to-face with Hussein, Cheney and Halliburton were also moving into position to capitalize upon Hussein's removal from power. In October of 1995, the same month Cheney was made CEO of Halliburton, that company announced a deal that would put it first in line should war break out in Iraq. Their job: To take control of burning oil wells, put out the fires, and prepare them for service. Another corporation that stands to do well by a war in Iraq is Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton. Ostensibly, Brown & Root is in the construction business, and thus has won a share of the $900 million government contract for the rebuilding of post-war Iraqi bridges, roads and other basic infrastructure. This is but the tip of the financial iceberg, as the oil wells will also have to be repaired after parent-company Halliburton puts out the fires. More ominously is Brown & Root's stock in trade: the building of permanent American military bases. There are twelve permanent U.S. bases in Kosovo today, all built and maintained by Brown & Root for a multi-billion dollar profit. If anyone should wonder why the administration has not offered an exit strategy to the Iraq war plans, the presence of Brown & Root should answer them succinctly. We do not plan on exiting. In all likelihood, Brown & Root is in Iraq to build permanent bases there, from which attacks upon other Middle Eastern nations can be staged and managed. Again, this casts Bush's speech on Wednesday in a new light. Being at the center of the action is nothing new for Halliburton and Brown & Root. The two companies have worked closely with governments in Algeria, Angola, Bosnia, Burma, Croatia, Haiti, Nigeria, Rwanda, and Somalia during the worst chapters in those nation's histories. Many environmental and human rights groups claim that Cheney, Halliburton and Brown & Root were, in fact, centrally involved in these fiascos. More recently, Brown & Root was contracted by the Defense Department to build cells for detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The bill for that one project came to $300 million. Cheney became involved with PNAC officially in 1997, while still profiting from deals between Halliburton and Hussein. One year later, Cheney and PNAC began actively and publicly agitating for war on Iraq. They have not stopped to this very day. Another company with a vested interest in both war on Iraq and massively increased defense spending is the Carlyle Group. Carlyle, a private global investment firm with more than $12.5 billion in capital under management, was formed in 1987. Its interests are spread across 164 companies, including telecommunications firms and defense contractors. It is staffed at the highest levels by former members of the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. Former President George H. W. Bush is himself employed by Carlyle as a senior advisor, as is long-time Bush family advisor and former Secretary of State James Baker III. One company acquired by Carlyle is United Defense, a weapons manufacturer based in Arlington, VA. United Defense provides the Defense Department with combat vehicle systems, fire support, combat support vehicle systems, weapons delivery systems, amphibious assault vehicles, combat support services and naval armaments. Specifically, United Defense manufactures the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the M113 armored personnel carrier, the M88A2 Recovery Vehicle, the Grizzly, the M9 ACE, the Composite Armored Vehicle, the M6 Linebacker, the M7 BFIST, the Armored Gun System, the M4 Command and Control Vehicle, the Battle Command Vehicle, the Paladin, the Crusader, and Electric Gun/Pulse Power weapons technology. In other words, everything a growing Defense Department, a war in Iraq, and a burgeoning American military empire needs. Ironically, one group that won't profit from Carlyle's involvement in American military buildup is the family of Osama bin Laden. The bin Laden family fortune was amassed by Mohammed bin Laden, father of Osama, who built a multi-billion dollar construction empire through contracts with the Saudi government. The Saudi BinLaden Group, as this company is called, was heavily invested in Carlyle for years. Specifically, they were invested in Carlyle's Partners II Fund, which includes in that portfolio United Defense and other weapons manufacturers. This relationship was described in a September 27, 2001 article in the Wall Street Journal entitled 'Bin Laden Family Could Profit From Jump in Defense Spending Due to Ties to US Bank.' The 'bank' in question was the Carlyle Group. A follow-up article published by the Journal on September 28 entitled ' Bin Laden Family Has Intricate Ties With Washington - Saudi Clan Has Had Access To Influential Republicans ' further describes the relationship. In October of 2001, Saudi BinLaden and Carlyle severed their relationship by mutual agreement. The timing is auspicious. There are a number of depths to be plumbed in all of this. The Bush administration has claimed all along that this war with Iraq is about Saddam Hussein's connections to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, though through it all they have roundly failed to establish any basis for either accusation. On Wednesday, Bush went further to claim that the war is about liberating the Iraqi people and bringing democracy to the Middle East. This ignores cultural realities on the ground in Iraq and throughout the region that, salted with decades of deep mistrust for American motives, make such a democracy movement brought at the point of the sword utterly impossible to achieve. This movement, cloaked in democracy, is in fact a PNAC-inspired push for an American global empire. It behooves Americans to understand that there is a great difference between being the citizen of a constitutional democracy and being a citizen of an empire. The establishment of an empire requires some significant sacrifices. Essential social, medical, educational and retirement services will have to be gutted so that those funds can be directed towards a necessary military buildup. Actions taken abroad to establish the preeminence of American power, most specifically in the Middle East, will bring a torrent of terrorist attacks to the home front. Such attacks will bring about the final suspension of constitutional rights and the rule of habeas corpus, as we will find ourselves under martial law. In the end, however, this may be inevitable. An empire cannot function with the slow, cumbersome machine of a constitutional democracy on its back. Empires must be ruled with speed and ruthlessness, in a manner utterly antithetical to the way in which America has been governed for 227 years. And yes, of course, a great many people will die. It would be one thing if all of this was based purely on the ideology of our leaders. It is another thing altogether to consider the incredible profit motive behind it all. The President, his father, the Vice President, a whole host of powerful government officials, along with stockholders and executives from Halliburton and Carlyle, stand to make a mint off this war. Long-time corporate sponsors from the defense, construction and petroleum industries will likewise profit enormously. Critics of the Bush administration like to bandy about the word "fascist" when speaking of George. The image that word conjures is of Nazi stormtroopers marching in unison towards Hitler's Final Solution. This does not at all fit. It is better, in this matter, to view the Bush administration through the eyes of Benito Mussolini. Mussolini, dubbed 'the father of Fascism,' defined the word in a far more pertinent fashion. "Fascism," said Mussolini, "should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." Boycott the French, the Germans, and the other 114 nations who stand against this Iraq war all you wish. France and Germany do not oppose Bush because they are cowards, or because they enjoy the existence of Saddam Hussein. France and Germany stand against the Bush administration because they intend to stop this Pax Americana in its tracks if they can. They have seen militant fascism up close and personal before, and wish never to see it again. Would that we Americans could be so wise.
Why does it make a difference if people support the war for different reasons or the same reason. If one person was vegitarian for health reasons and another for ethical concerns, does that invalidate being a vegitarian.
What if down the road, we find out that Bush had ulterior reasons which reflect badly upon him and his Admin. The parents who lost their children in the war would then know that their kids did not die for some noble reason but some embarassing cause.
