Yes his brother made a choice but that doesn't mean is life and safety should be idly thrown away. Bush is the Commander and Chief of the country and ultimately it is his decision to send troops into harms way so yes it does come down to Bush. I've never bought this argument that since soldiers volunteer for duty then that is OK that they get sent into harm's way. If anything that tells me that we should be more careful in sending them into harm.
did you read the first page of the thread? there's no reliable evidence behind the report and it contains a bunch of falsehoods about the author's previous writings and beliefs. why put any merit in the report at all? give them a few more weeks may make sense regardless of the report, but that's a different story...
no reliable evidence? they just got back from iraq, which is one hell of a lot more than one can say of, oh, glenn greenwald, just to pick a name at random.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWQ5NDkwMDNiMzZhODNlNjdhN2JiM2EyMjQ1N2ZmMWQ= [rquoter]Victor Davis Hanson: What is interesting about the essay is that both scholars were early supporters of the war to remove Saddam Hussein, then constant critics of the acknowledged mistakes of the occupation, and now somewhat confident that Gen. Petraeus can still salvage a victory. In two regards, they reflect somewhat the vast majority of the American people who approved the war, slowly soured on the peace — but now have yet to be won over again by the surge to renew their erstwhile support. We are witnessing two phenomena. First, after four years of misery the Iraqis themselves are tiring of war, have grasped what al Qaeda et al. do when in local control, realize the U.S. wants to leave only after establishing a constitutional state, not steal its oil, sense that the United States may well win — and are slowly making adjustments to hedge their bets. In a wider sense, the war is as most wars: an evolution from blunders to wisdom, the side that makes the fewest and learns from them the most eventually winning. Al Qaeda and the insurgents in 2004-6 developed the means, both tactical and strategic, to thwart the reconstruction, but we, not they, have since learned the more and evolved. As in the Civil War, WWI, and WWII, the present American military — which has committed far less mistakes than past American forces — has shifted tactics, redefined strategy, and found the right field commanders. We forget that the U.S. Army and Marines, far from being broken, now have the most experienced and wizened officers in the world. Like Summer 1864, Summer 1918, and in the Pacific 1944-5, the key is the support of a weary public for an ever improving military that must nevertheless endure a final storm before breaking the enemy. The irony is that should President Bush endure the hysteria and furor and prove able to give the gifted Gen. Petraeus the necessary time — and I think he will — his presidency could still turn out to be Trumanesque, once we digest the changes in Europe, the progress on North Korea, the end of both the Taliban and Saddam, and the prevention of another 9/11 attack. How odd that all the insider advice to triangulate — big spending, new programs, uninspired appointments, liberal immigration reform — have nearly wrecked the administration, and what were once considered its liabilities — foreign policy, the war on terror and Iraq — may still save it. — Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is the author, most recently, of A War Like No Other. How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War.[/rquoter]
It seemed like an honest assessment. They were both critical and outlined problems and challenges. It wasn't a glowing report. But it was optimistic. You only want to pull the plug on Iraq if you are 100% sure it's a lost cause. Right now I'm 90% sure, but if there's reason for optimisim, I'm willing to give it a bit more of a chance. To me, having Bush fail isn't important. I'd rather see America succeed even if Bush takes credit for it and it helps the republicans come next year. Yes, it was a mistake to go in, but that alone isn't the justification to leave. I supported leaving because I saw the war as a failed cause, and I haven't changed my mind, but I am willing to have an open mind as well.
only new yorker could say something so contradictory - you see the war as a failed cause and you havent changed your mind, but you are willing to have an open mind? that makes sense...NOT! you do realize that 50% of the troops who have actually served say iraq is unwinnable, right?
Their lives should be valued, but when you volunteer into the military, you are volunteering to sacrafice your life as the government sees fit. I think it's wrong to blame Bush for the deaths of the soldiers entirely. Now, that doesn't mean their lives don't have value of course, but in war, soldiers are pawns to be used to acheive whatever objective is necessary - morally or immoral. Iraq isn't a failure because we're losing soldiers, it's a failure because our objectives can not be acheived. If we could acheive our objectives, and it would benefit America, then soldiers lives may be forfeited. And so long as their is a chance for that, command has a reason to put those soldiers in harm's way. To you it is. I don't speculate on whether that's the case or not. That's a severe accusation and you don't have the evidence to back that up. He's an atrocious leader to be sure, but let's not let our disgust for the man force us to blind ourselves.
They saw what was trotted out for them to see, as Webb called it a "dog and pony show". There are soldiers who have been there and have seen much more than the hand picked scenes that these long-time war supporters were shown, who believe far differently than these guys. You can believe what they say if you want, just like you believed it before. But there has been ample reason shown as to why others might have serious doubts about their op-ed piece. So it is silly for you to accuse others of preferring to see Bush wrong even if it means that America suffers more and loses, and Iraq is worse off because of it. By the way you have been very unresponsive to serious and fair questions that have been posed to you.
Jeez - I go away for a few days and the place goes to hell If I might. As much as he wants to be, Bush is commander and chief of the armed forces, not the country. carry on...
You're joking right? In a democracy with a volunteer army there's is a two way pact... soldiers agree to put themselves in harm's way and the country agrees not to waste them. Only half the deal is currently being kept. This is a common refrain lately... essentially dismissing concerns about the state of our military and the enormous cost in lives by saying "they knew what they were getting into." I have trouble dreaming up a more reprehensible idea. Soldiers are not pawns... they are representatives of this country, neighbors, relatives, parents. What an elitist concept... soldiers are pawns! If I recall, there has been an enlightenment, we have a document that says all are created equal, and this is not the Dark Ages. And they should not be used for "immoral objectives" and only used for "moral" ones when the case for national interest is compelling. The case for Iraq has never and will never be compelling.
I disagree. A general has to make tough decisions, and if he is weighing the lives of his troops over the good of the country, then our military is severely weakened. The soliders gave their lives to the country when they enlisted. When they are on the field, their duty is to their country first, not their familites. Morality is subjective anyway. We need to look at what our country is doing over there from a strategic standpoint. Once the right decision is made there, then what happens with soldiers can be addresses. But military decisions should not be able saving the lives of troops, but rather saving the lives of Americans. At times, if the objectives are small, yes, troops lives may trump that objective. But when the countries future security is at stake, I think we have to give it 7 more weeks. If you put 100 of our soldiers lives above our national security, you are defeating the very oath they took to serve and protect our nation. You are undermining the sacrafice their commrads have taken. We have to give this a few more months.
How I wish you were in Iraq or Afghanistan, instead of sitting behind a keyboard, typing rubbish. On your "chessboard." Their lives should be valued, but when you volunteer into the military, you are volunteering to sacrifice your life as the government sees fit. I think it's wrong to blame Bush for the deaths of the soldiers entirely. Now, that doesn't mean their lives don't have value of course, but in war, soldiers are pawns to be used to achieve whatever objective is necessary - morally or immoral. Iraq isn't a failure because we're losing soldiers, it's a failure because our objectives can not be achieved. - NewYorker Iraq is a failure on so many levels. It would be absurd, if it wasn't so tragic. As rimrocker pointed out, our volunteer military is based on a mutual agreement. They volunteer to serve our country and stand in harm's way, and in return, we agree not to put them in harm's way unless it is vital to the national interest. They are not pawns. That was a despicable thing to say. Our people are fighting and dying because of the fool in the White House, not because it was in our national interest to invade and occupy Iraq. It was against our national interest to do so, as much as going into Afghanistan was in our national interest. Apparently, you don't see the difference. D&D. Impeach Bush and Cheney.
Well there is only one Commander and Chief so he is the commander and chief of the country just like there is only one Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of the country.
In principle you are right but you are missing there is another part of the equation. We live in a democracy and ultimately the civillian leadership of our country is who commands the military. As politicians the civillian leadership is responsible and accountable to the rest of the society. As the commanders of the military it is perfectly in line with our democracy that we hold the the political leaders responsibel.
yes, and we can vote them out. That's not what i'm discussing here. Once in a war, military action can get quite ugly. War is hell as it's often said. I opposed this war from the beginning, for multiple reasons. One of those reasons was that once you engage in it, there is the potential for heavy casualties. But once that decision is made, a decision that both politicians and public supported, you can't lose your stomach for war now. The situation has to viewed on the potential for gain. It has to be a cold hard decision. If it's not, we'll just be making another mistake. And two mistakes don't make a right, they just make things worse.
I disagree. According to The Constitution: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States Now, if you say the President is the only CINC in the country at the Federal level, then you are correct. But he is definitely not CINC of the country. That implies (at least to me) a military dictatorship.
"We" did NOT "agree not to put them in harm's way unless it is vital to the national interest". What we did do was voted Bush into office so he can decide what's vital to the national interest. Volunteers for the army signed a pact with the US government, knowing fully they will be asked do whatever mission the government deemed necessary. If you believe we should pull out of Iraq, then vote someone in that will do that. I won't like it if Hillary is voted into office and decides to raise my taxes, but I'd still have to live with the results.
Here's some tasty bits from today's Greenwald column... basso, be sure and click on the link for the whole thing...
