Daily Kos

"Your son volunteered. He knew what he was getting into ..."

Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 08:29:43 AM PDT

So did I ... in 1968 five months after the Tet offensive. I dropped out of college and enlisted.

And like the current volunteers who are described by worn-out conservative flag-wearers, I had a rough idea of what I was getting into. That "rough idea" was based on trust ... trust in a system and, ultimately, trust in a specific leader and a specific governing political party.

The specific leader of course was LBJ, the specific party was the Democratic Party and the specific system was and is the system that allows us to hang our political opinions on buttons and sanctimonious drapery of stars and stripes from which we belch our prejudices.

When you sign up you endorse a contract on the bottom line. It's a contract with specified written obligations on the part of both parties, but also with unspecified but powerful assumptions on the part of both parties.

In the case of joining the military knowing what you are getting into is based on very powerful unwritten but nationally accepted assumptions:

(1) The integrity and honor of the commander in chief of the military and that CIC's skill, wisdom and understanding of all reasons when and why military citizens are to be placed in harm's way.

As a volunteer you are at the mercy of that individual, his party and their combined priorities - with a strong expectation that those priorities extend beyond a desire to remain in the driver's seat.

(2)As a volunteer you are at the mercy of your own fellow citizens (including your own family) whom you trust to be willing and supportive in making sure the leadership does not waste your vital blood, devotion and patriotism in pipe dreams, self-interested agenda's and ideologies; That leaders are driven by a genuine desire to involve the country in on-going mutual participation and compromise regarding foreign policy before resorting to force as a last resort.

(3) Volunteering to become a soldier is volunteering to preserve and protect - with your own power and will - the country, its borders, its citizens and its institutions. It isn't volunteering to keep a political party in power. The only way to avoid that circumstance is for the citizens to assume their rightful role in the triangular relationship with the troops and the CIC.

The troops are expected to trust the CIC's wisdom as well as the patriotic participation of the Citizens who will keep the CIC honest.

The CIC is expected to trust the troops to follow orders and expects to sustain by honesty and integrity the support of the Citizens.

The Citizens expect the troops to do their duties and expect the CIC to sustain by honesty and integrity his political authority. The Citizens must be willing to hold the CIC accountable and willfully resist when the honesty and integrity of leadership is absent.

That is what is going on right now. The President has demonstrated a lack of leadership at a time when leadership is needed. The killing continues daily .... and we are witness to a repeat of a leader who is like a deer caught in the headlights ... sitting there ... doing nothing ... pondering what ... while pretending to enjoy "My Pet Goat."

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 156 comments

  •  Outstanding!!! n/t (4.00 / 10)

    Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither. (Paraphrasing B. Franklin)

    by p a roberson on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 08:32:02 AM PDT

    •  Impeach the liar Bush (4.00 / 14)

      This powerful diary captures the crimes of Bushco, they have lied and squandered the lives of patriotic Americans and continue to do so long after their lies are exposed.

      Bush and his cowardly supporters are never on the front lines, they "Support the Troops" with their wimpy little magnets on the back of their terrorist supporting SUV gas guzzlers.

      Ride a bike or Drive a Prius to cut terrorist funding.

      or

      $1.00 per gallon of gas goes to the terrorists, how much money did you deliver to them today?

      Impeaching Bush and his henchman Cheney is the way out of this mess.

      •  Don't you mean... (none / 1)

        Impeach Cheney and his henchman (Ventriloquist's Dummy?) Bush?

        "Teach the children quietly, for someday sons and daughters, will rise up and fight while we stood still!" -Mike Rutheford

        by Bulldawg on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 11:08:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bush's head (none / 0)

          is not the only thing up bush's ass.
          •  This has got to be the worst fought... (4.00 / 2)

            war ever or at least in recent history. Let's see what is our strategy:

            Handicap our troops on the battlefield and demand that they show excessive restraint to the point that they are needlessly killed.

            If we do happen to capture a prisoner we then take him to the prison and torture him even though he is no threat and not on the battlefield.

            Violate international law regarding detention and prosecuting individuals.

            Neglect to provide the troops with enough equipement and other support.

            Neglect to seal the boarder with Syria.

            Neglect public services and infrastructure maintenance.

            Get mad when insurgents kill our troops and then ramp up the torture of detained prisoners.

            Neglect to go after the insurgents that are killing our troops and kill them or capture them to take them off of the battlefield.

            Push too hard on the Constitution and tick off the Shiites and the Sunnis.

            Make speaches about taking the fight to the enemy and then don't take the fight to the enemy and wuss out on the battlefield and torture more detained prisoners.

            This is so stupid it is hard to believe.

            The strategy should be to hunt down and kill every insurgent on the battlefield as is possible - they either surrender or die and if they surrender they should be treated with absolute dignity and respect in detention. Furthermore, the Syrian boarder should be sealed immediately.

            This is the only strategy that is going to help us be more successful and win hearts and minds as well as respect, however absolute success is not possible at this point.

            Honor bound to defend freedom. Freedom is long-standing army regulations.

            by RichardG on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 12:52:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Why do they need armor? (4.00 / 4)

              In a climate of "Shock & Awe" and lightning war and invasion, there was no need for additional armor for our armed forces as there would be only flowers, chocolate and kisses thrown their way upon arrival--there was no plan for opposition and clearly no plan for what is going on to fix the mess we have right now. I feel the best plan is to get out--it looks as though the Iraqi's are already in full civil war and our people getting killed is only marginally slowing the civil war that is days from being full-blown. Bush's Iraq Legacy? Death, debt, no oil, no democracy, no constitution, no respect. Over and out.

              Above the clouds, what's to be found, I have to wonder - will I be around--Paul Weller

              by Above the Clouds on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 01:15:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Good post... (none / 1)

                there probably is no way to completely fix this mess, but the strategy was and is mind boggling.

                Right now the only way to truly win is to send enough troops, but we don't have the troops to send.

                Furthermore, the military is like a well-tuned race car it can go 100 mph and do so smoothly and steadily, but you can also push too hard and blow out the moter.

                We are at the point where we can conceivably blow out the moter of this race car. If they screw up the military we are really in bad shape.

                Honor bound to defend freedom. Freedom is long-standing army regulations.

                by RichardG on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 01:35:17 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Cheering and chocolates (4.00 / 3)

                I heard some republican right-wing talking head explain how they did greet us with cheering and chocolates.

                Para-phrasing.........."Don't you remember the cheering when we toppled the statue of Saddam."
                That was it folks.  Left me speech less to hear that stupid nonsense.

                Time for bushandco to get out of the green zone and into the real Iraq.

                IMPEACH THE SOB'S.  THEN TRY THEM FOR WAR CRIMES.

            •  Richard says: (4.00 / 3)

              The strategy should be to hunt down and kill every insurgent on the battlefield as is possible - they either surrender or die and if they surrender they should be treated with absolute dignity and respect in detention.

              Good point. Has anyone noticed that there is never any mention in the media of Americans who have been taken prisoner by the insurgency? Never -- not ever. Almost 2,000 KIA and almost 7,000 seriously wounded, but there is only one soldier - Pfc. Keith M. Maupin, 20, of Batavia, Ohio - who is listed as captured. Doesn't that seem odd? Americans have been taken as prisoners of war in most past wars, so why not in this one? For example, during the Vietnam War, the North Vietnamese held about 700 of our prisoners in the "Hanoi Hilton" prison camp. These prioners were regularly the subject of talks during the Paris peace negotiations, and their release was a condition of the Paris Accords that ended the war.

              One thing the Abu Ghraib scandal proved to the insurgency is that if Iraqis get captured, they will not be treated per the Geneva convention as prisoners of war. They will be tortured, and they will be executed. Furthermore, the American government has never once intimated that they would be willing to consider prisoner exchanges. This is a rediculous position to hold, since we're dealing in Iraq with Arabs who have a rich tradition and deep understanding of prisoner exchanges. George Bush refuses to negotiate with them under any circumstances, even if they may have American prisoners. Thus, the insurgents have no incentive to show mercy to Americans prisoners, and instead they are executing captured American soldiers in the field and on the spot. This could be avoided if George Bush would get his head out of his ass and indicate that that the Americans might be willing to negotiate prisoner exchanges. But that would involve negotiating with the enemy, and Bush isn't about to authorize that.

              •  I don't see this as unlikely (none / 1)

                It does seem plausible to me that there is only one prisoner (I think there is another soldier listed as MIA) in this war. We don't have small units which might be enveloped by larger enemy forces, and the Iraqis don't have the capacity to shoot down our jets (a lot of the POWs in Vietnam were pilots weren't they?)

                Our soldiers move in armored convoys with overwhelming firepower. Most of the casualties are in ones and twos or from IEDs. So, there is almost always someone to recover wounded and dead.

                None of this is to imply we shouldn't respect basic rights, but I don't think doing so will bring back more of our guys alive. It's just the right thing to do.

      •  Plenty of blame to go around (4.00 / 7)

        Of course Bush and Cheney should be impeached. But they should have already lost their jobs the last election. In a democracy, when the President is an obviously dishonest incompetent whose foreign policy is being made by a small gang of imperialist kooks, the voters have an obligation to the troops to replace him. The blood of our troops that have died since Nov 2004 is partially on the hands of everyone who voted for Bush. It is also, through well intended yet poor judgement, partially on the hands of Democrats who chose to offer as the alternative to Bush someone whose position on Iraq was "deliberately vague."

        Well, that's probably a bit harsh. But please let's not make the same mistake again in 2008 by nominating a pro-debacle candidate (like Clinton, Biden, Kerry or Edwards) again. If they can't admit their support for the invasion was a mistake, no one will or should take them seriously.

        miasmo.com If you're not a liberal, you're a dick.

        by miasmo on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 11:35:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's not harsh at all (4.00 / 5)

          I voted for Kerry and defended the choice.  But I remember feeling demoralized at the time when he said he would have done nothing different about the war.

          The example of Cindy Sheehan has caused me to reconsider my rationalizations for John Kerry and strive not to make that mistake again.

      •  Cursor.org (4.00 / 2)

        Those of you who know how to do this, please link to Cursor.org for two very important articles.  1)  What Does the Administration's Leaked Mea Culpa on Iraq Portend? -- we're building 14 permanent bases and have no intention of leaving, ever, and 2)  The David Lindoff piece -- states are passing legislation to test returning Guardsmen for uranium exposure.  Why?  It's already a problem.
  •  Recommend (4.00 / 14)

    Sometimes I wish there was a Super-Recommend button, and this is one time I would use it. Thank you for the thoughtful and wise post.

    The Justice Department is no longer a credible defender of the rule of law or the Constitution.

    by Overseas on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 08:32:24 AM PDT

    •  DITTO! (4.00 / 4)

      I have recommended the diary, but if I could it would get front paged NOW as it is amazing.

      Have left overs? Visit my new blog http://leftovermagic.blogspot.com/ for ideas on how to create new recipes from left overs.

      by SanJoseLady on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 08:42:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  A super-recommend button (none / 1)

      might be great IMHO if it limited the user to one diary "super-recommend" per day, to reinforce the extent to which the diary is special.  Perhaps each super-recommendation could be valued as 2 recommendations.  If implemented, it may result in more diaries being read, so that the best for that day could be ascertained by each of the Kossacks.  What do you think?

      -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

      by sunbro on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 10:06:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I have tears in my eyes (4.00 / 9)

    because of this diary, and how in so few words you have captured the very soul of why this war is so wrong, why it is so very wrong to continue to keep our troops in Iraq.

    Thank you for your service, and thank you for taking the time to write this diary.

    Please, please send this diary to all of the major newspapers in the country as an opinion piece, as it nails the whole "he volunteered" issue with the facts that far too many are willing to ignore.

    Perhaps also you could go to Camp Casey, be there on August 27th when the war supporters show up to wave the flag.

    Have left overs? Visit my new blog http://leftovermagic.blogspot.com/ for ideas on how to create new recipes from left overs.

    by SanJoseLady on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 08:41:54 AM PDT

    •  I'd go in a minute. But ... (4.00 / 46)

      "Perhaps also you could go to Camp Casey, be there on August 27th when the war supporters show up to wave the flag."

      My wife Lietta Ruger just returned after a week down there standing by Cindy, wearing out her cell-phone with interviews, talk-show call-in activities, etc.

      We're members of Military Families Speak Out and publishers of the MFSO Pacific Northwest website.

      But it's all volunteer (we knew what we were getting into) and we're a single income family. So I go to work and make noise on the Internet and Lietta goes to Crawford (and may go again) and makes noise in person.

      Whoever defines your reality owns your reality. That particular proprietorship must always be your own and not someone else's.

      by Arthur Ruger on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 09:57:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What a great post! (none / 1)

    Thank you for summing up the arguement so elequently.  I want to link your diary to my webpage.

    "I simply take the side of truth against any lie, of sense against nonsense, justice against injustice." Czech President Vaclav Havel

    by idealistlefty on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 08:46:49 AM PDT

  •  Eloquent (4.00 / 24)

    And it describes both why recruitment is down and re-enlistment is fair , even with massive financial incentives being added.

    Post 9/11 there was no problem having people enlist, even during the initial stages in Afghanistan and the being of the conflict in Iraq.  Americans are willing to serve for their country, even knowing what the possible consequences are, up to and including death in that service.

    But when they no longer have trust in the CinC or the other civilian leaders of this country to "spend" their lives wisely and for the good of the country, they will stay away from that commitment.

    When they see this country and particularly its leaders being willing to take us into a war for self-aggrandizement, they shy away.

    And when they see out leaders, having put our military in hatrm's way for no solid reason, and then not provide equipment, numbers or post fighting support, they stay away even more.

    It is not that people don't want to serve their country.  We have seen evidence time and again that they are willing to.

    But they desparately want to believe that if they make the ultimate sacrifice, it will be for the country, not for Halliburton or someone's self-inflated ego.

    Bush, so incompetent, he can't even do the wrong things right.

    by JAPA21 on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 08:51:31 AM PDT

    •  Exactly.. (4.00 / 6)

      And this quote:

      "Volunteering to become a soldier is volunteering to preserve and protect - with your own power and will - the country, its borders, its citizens and its institutions. It isn't volunteering to keep a political party in power."

      ...is the simple answer to any right-wing whining about how they "volunteered" they "knew what they were getting into", "what did they expect" blah blah blah.  Yes, thhey volunteered - but not for THIS.

      It is no worse, because I write of it. It would be no better, if I stopped my most unwilling hand.

      by ChaosMouse on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 10:15:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I've had people say that to me about Reservists... (4.00 / 27)

    but they did not and could not expect their government and commanders to lie, deceive, cheat and exercise bad judgement.

    I had a fraternity brother, a fire-fighter in NYC, die last winter, largely due to the fact the FDNY brass removed rescue/escape lines from the standard gear.  These men were forced to jump out of a four story building, and two died.  

    They too had an expectation that their commanders would do and provide everthing possible to ensure their safety, and not cause unnecessary risks.

    When those expectations are not met, you can be assured that they did not 'know what they were getting into..."

    •  Your friend is a hero... (4.00 / 2)

      Of both the FDNY and future firefighters.  I work for a company (Crosby) and we are working with the FDNY to make a personal escape system that is lightweight enough for each firefighter to carry (under 5 lbs) yet can hold 3 firefighters and their equipment (however if each individual has his own, it doesn't NEED to hold 1000 lbs, but we like to make strong stuff).

      We were told about this project a few weeks agao and when the FDNY came to Tulsa to test this system out, they told us the story of the 5 men, trapped in the building and taking the only way out - the 5th story window they were next to (2 died, 3 survived if I recall correctly).  After successful testing they were very impressed with our system and are pushing forward with getting development finished.  

      Your friend's story is quite tragic, but his sacrifice was not in vain.  Now there will be a system to prevent any future occurences.

      "Maybe you know something I don't know." -- G Dub (-4.38,-3.03)

      by don the tin foil on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 10:22:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Agree wtih Overseas (4.00 / 9)

    Super-double-recommended!!!

    I wish you would sent this to your local paper as an op-ed piece.  Too many people need to know these facts that you have laid out.

    Outta here, I don't deal well with sites that condone racism.

    by fabooj on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 08:58:10 AM PDT

  •  year right! (4.00 / 7)

    If they volunteered so freely, what is the need for the "stop loss" on the Guard that keeps them from leaving, LONG past what they "signed up for".

    The Republican's are right about one thing, Iraq isn't Vietnam.  In Vietnam, you only had to serve on year in country, in Iraq they are serving two, three, and I am sure a few have been rotated in four times.  I know of 50 year old women they have mobilized and sent over there.  

    This isn't Vietnam, this is worse...and it is getting worse every day.

    Want to watch Republican economic theories in action? Look at Iraq.

    by Michaelpb on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 09:00:34 AM PDT

  •  Thanks Arthur S n/t (none / 0)

    Today's Special: Chickenhawk, slow-baked in its mother's basement.

    by Earl on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 09:02:29 AM PDT

  •  This was really good (4.00 / 4)

    I appreciate your posting this.  On the train ride home yesterday, I read this op-ed in the Wall St. Journal; don't know if anyone blogged about it but here are some snippets.

    "Cindy Sheehan Does Not Speak for Me"
    By RONALD R. GRIFFIN
    August 18, 2005; Page A10

    I lost a son in Iraq and Cindy Sheehan does not speak for me.

    I grieve with Mrs. Sheehan, for all too well I know the full measure of the agony she is forever going to endure. I honor her son for his service and sacrifice. However, I abhor all that she represents and those who would cast her as the symbol for parents of our fallen soldiers.

    The fallen heroes, until now, have enjoyed virtually no individuality. They have been treated as a monolith, a mere number. Now Mrs. Sheehan, with adept public relations tactics, has succeeded in elevating herself above the rest of us. Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida declared that Mrs. Sheehan is now the symbol for all parents who have lost children in Iraq. Sorry, senator. Not for me.

    Maureen Dowd of the New York Times portrays Mrs. Sheehan as a distraught mom standing heroically outside the guarded gates of the most powerful and inhumane man on earth, President Bush. Ms. Dowd is so moved by Mrs. Sheehan's plight that she bestowed upon her and all grieving parents the title of "absolute moral authority." That characterization epitomizes the arrogance and condescension of anyone who would presume to understand and speak for all of us. How can we all possess "absolute moral authority" when we hold so many different perspectives?

    I don't want that title. I haven't earned that title.

    [...]

    Over the past few days I have reached out to other parents and loved ones of fallen heroes in an attempt to find out their reactions to all the attention Mrs. Sheehan has attracted. What emerges from those conversations is an empathy for Mrs. Sheehan's suffering but a fundamental disagreement with her politics.

    [...]

    Karen Long is the mother of Spc. Zachariah Long, who died with my son Kyle on May 30, 2003. Zack and Kyle were inseparable friends as only soldiers can be, and Karen and I have become inseparable friends since their deaths. Karen's view is that what Mrs. Sheehan is doing she has every right to do, but she is dishonoring all soldiers, including Karen's son, Zack. Karen cannot comprehend why Mrs. Sheehan cannot seem to come to grips with the idea that her own son, Casey, was a soldier like Zack who had a mission to complete. Karen will tell you over and over again that Zack is not here and no one, but no one will dishonor her son.

    My wife, Robin, has a different take on Mrs. Sheehan. She told me, "I don't care what she says or does. She is no more important than any other mother."

    [...]

    In August 2003, five months into Operation Iraqi Freedom and after three years of service, Casey Sheehan re-enlisted in the Army with the full knowledge there was a war going on, and with the high probability he would be assigned to a combat area. Mrs. Sheehan frequently speaks of her son in religious terms, even saying that she thought that some day Casey would be a priest. Like so many of the individuals who have given their lives in service to our country, Casey was a very special young man. How do you decry that which someone has chosen to do with his life? How does a mother dishonor the sacrifice of her own son?

    [...]

    We refuse to allow Cindy Sheehan to speak for all of us. Instead, we ask you to learn the individual stories. They are glorious. Honor their memories.

    Honor their service. Never dishonor them by giving in. They never did.

    Mr. Griffin is the father of Spc. Kyle Andrew Griffin, a recipient of the Army Commendation Medal, Army Meritorious Service Medal and the Bronze Star, who was killed in a truck accident on a road between Mosul and Tikrit on May 30, 2003.

    I felt very conflicted after reading this commentary. On the one hand, it's a shame he's lost a child but on the other hand, he seems unconcerned that his son's death was based on a war that was built on lies. Would you tell this father the same thing you wrote in this diary?

    Liberal: "I still think it's a respectable word. Its root is "liber," the Latin word for "free," and isn't that what we are all about?"--Mary McGrory

    by mini mum on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 09:03:49 AM PDT

    •  Cindy's courage (4.00 / 23)

      enables her to accept that her son died for no good reason.  That's an absolutely devastating realization.  Many people can't go there.  They just have to keep lying to themselves.
      •  You are so right about this (4.00 / 6)

        I've been trying to find a way to articulate your point myself, and you hit it spot-on.  Most of the families who feel the way the editorialist does can't accept the fact that the Iraq war is a debacle, because that would mean coming to terms with the fact that their loved ones did die unnecessarily.  I fully sympathize with where they're at, and maybe it's easy for me to posit since I'm not among their ranks.  But the time has come to start calling a quagmire a quagmire.

        It's a dangerous thing, being born. ~The Kite Runner

        by Nancy in LA on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 09:42:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well it's why I was so conflicted about it (none / 0)

          I fully sympathize with where they're at, and maybe it's easy for me to posit since I'm not among their ranks.

          And this is what I thought, too.  It's easy for me to say and I don't like to tell anyone how they should feel.  But on the other hand, it pains me to know his son died for no reason yet he thinks his memory is being dishonored.

          Liberal: "I still think it's a respectable word. Its root is "liber," the Latin word for "free," and isn't that what we are all about?"--Mary McGrory

          by mini mum on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 09:51:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I find it hard to sympathize with him (4.00 / 14)

            when his position and his worry about his son's memory being dishonored are used to kill more sons and daughters.  Every week more American military personnel are dying in Iraq.  The divorce rate in the enlisted ranks is up 40%.  The divorce rate among officers is up 100%.  There have been women murdered by their husbands recently back from Iraq.  The suicide rate is up.  There are thousands of wounded who are at the mercy of the VA system -- the same system that is underfunded and undercut and weakening every year.  Every day there are military spouses giving birth and crying and parenting and struggling alone, because to admit that this war is a clusterfuck is to admit that the death of this guy's son was for nothing and that there is no honor in dying for an unjust war.   Why is this man's pain so much more valid than Cindy Sheehan's?  Why is his pain more important than our anger?  My worry and hurt and anger and pain are reserved for the families of the dead and injured, and for the families ripped apart by divorce and violence caused by the enormous mental and emotional damage inflicted in this war.  

            Please understand, I am a military wife, and I in no way wish to dishonor or belittle or ignore the pain these people feel, or the deaths of the men and women in Iraq.  I resent the pain of these people being used for political gain, and I do believe that when other grieving parents speak out against Cindy they are being used.  And I am angry, and scared, because my husband could end up in a combat zone again, for no good and real and true reasons.  I am angry, because I do believe the lives lost so far were in vain, and I can not bear the continued losses.  

            Proudly providing chaos since 1964 -6.75, -8.31

            by jules too on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 10:25:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think most of us are on the same page with this (3.75 / 4)

              I agree with all your points and I by no means meant to imply that anyone's pain was more legitimate than another's.  Simply saying that from an objective standpoint, I can understand how hard it must be for some families to come to terms with the fact that their losses were avoidable and unnecessary.  Sadly, tho, the lost soldiers/sailors/airmen were at the mercy of an arrogant, short-sighted (and the adjectives could go on) Commander-in-Chief.

              May you and your family be kept safe from the madness, whatever form it takes.

              It's a dangerous thing, being born. ~The Kite Runner

              by Nancy in LA on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 10:36:29 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Unfortunately others do not. (none / 1)

                The media only reports about parents that disagree with Cindy, and would never point out that their position is effectively condemning other sons and daughters to death.  I mean, I can understand why, that's pretty harsh, but at the same time, the treatment Cindy is getting is pretty harsh too.  

                There is a good reason we have laws and courts instead of vigilante justice, why we do not let the victims decide the punishment.  In the same way, we should not let the families of the dead and wounded and destroyed dictate foreign policy, and an honorable administration would not allow those parents to be used to justify the continuance of this war.

                Proudly providing chaos since 1964 -6.75, -8.31

                by jules too on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 10:52:31 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  But (none / 0)

                  "In the same way, we should not let the families of the dead and wounded and destroyed dictate foreign policy,"
                  I'm confused. Should Casey's mother be allowed to dictate a withdrawl from Iraq or not?
                  •  no. (4.00 / 3)

                    Foreign policy experts who tell the truth should be helping to set foreign policy.  Unfortunately this administration threw out anyone who would not go along with their vision of what Iraq would be.  We should not stay in Iraq just because to otherwise dishonors those who lost there lives there, and we should not be leaving Iraq just because Casey's mom wants us to.  We should be staying or leaving based on what is best for Iraq, the United States and the rest of the world.  Foreign policy should be based on sound, rational, reasoned, intelligent, well-thought out plans.  But first we have to get a sound, rational, reasoned, intelligent administration and Congress...

                    Proudly providing chaos since 1964 -6.75, -8.31

                    by jules too on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 03:08:31 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Getting my facts straight... (none / 0)

              In this week's army times, they state that the Pentagon's Defense Manpower Data Center is the source for these figures:  the overall active duty divorce rate has risen 40% over the past year, and the Army officer divorce rate has gone up 100%.  (I thought my husband had recycled it, but really he just moved it from the kitchen table to the dining room table, about halfway to the recycle bin...).

              And on August 3, nine days after returning from Iraq, a Pfc. appartently shot and killed his wife and then himself, near Ft Carson, CO.

              Proudly providing chaos since 1964 -6.75, -8.31

              by jules too on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 01:20:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  My college roommate (4.00 / 2)

                is responsible for all the manpower issues in the American military.  He is a good person, a great bureaucrat, a decent human being, which makes me wonder why he he continues to serve in this administration.  He is also an economist.  Everything is figures, arguments, statistical comparions. He is also, as I am, a friend of Uwe Reindhardt, who wrote the Op-Ed in WaPo two weeks ago, and whose son is currently serving in the marines in Iraq.  I wonder if he thinks Uwe's son is a statistic to be plugged into a statistical decision theoretic model of the costs and benefits of staying or leaving, and, more to the point, the costs and benefits of treating our wounded veterans not according to their social class, but according to what they have sacrificed for what they believed to be the common good.

                We will have this conversation in December.

      •  Extremely well said. (none / 0)

        It is heartbreaking to see and hear the lies continue.

        Not the church. Not the state. Women will decide their fate.

        by JaciCee on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 01:34:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I really can't understand them (4.00 / 6)

      I don't get their logic.  I can't see how Cindy Sheehan is dishonoring anyone except Bush and his minions.  

      As far as I know, she has never said anything derogatory about other Gold Star parents who disagree with her.  She honors and respects their positions too - something that Mr Griffin doesn't seem to be able to do for her.  It's fine to say that he "empathizes" with her but that doesn't jibe with his saying he "abhors all that she represents".

      He also disregards what she has said about Casey's motivation for going to war: that he disagreed with the war and with Bush, but he had a duty to go to help his comrades.  She certainly has never dishonored this choice of his.  She has attacked the war, but never Casey's sacrifice, or the sacrifice of all the others.  All she has said is that she wants this sacrifice to be for a good, true purpose, not for Bush's lies.

      Yes, there are still FEMINISTS on Daily Kos! Join the fabulous Supervixens every Thurs. night

      by hrh on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 11:18:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We have to counter that: (none / 1)

      We have to regard Cindy in a similar way that we do Howard Dean. For Howard Dean, it was never about him, it was about getting people involved in politics and running for office.

      In the same way, we have to downplay Cindy and focus on the people that she has empowered and who feel empowered to speak thanks to her actions.

      Its not just about Cindy. Its about the people she speaks for.

    •  Soldiers ignored? (4.00 / 6)

      The fallen heroes, until now, have enjoyed virtually no individuality. They have been treated as a monolith, a mere number.
       

      Excuse me, but isn't it the right wing that is publicly crying when programs like Nightline actually want to honor the memory? Isn't it the right wing that wants to ignore the dead. Isn't it the right wing that, if they could have it their way, wouldn't even bother to count them at all?!

      The reason why Cindy Sheehan is such a magnetic figure is not just because she's a grieving mom. It's because she's a grieving mom who can offer the logic that has gone largely unspoken in our mainstream media. Despite all the revision history and intimidation, propaganda and payola, the public has finally taken the mask off and Cindy Sheehan is an articulate but exceptionally average example of the HUMAN cost of Bush's Folly. The right just can't figure this out because they're the 35% still clinging for dear life in Bush's approval ratings.

    •  It's the message, not the messenger (4.00 / 3)

      I think the point Cindy has been trying to make is not that she is grieving or that Casey is lost forever or that W is a jackleg, but that there is still no, hmm, definition? description? of the "noble cause" for this war.  In my opinion, I don't think it matters that Cindy is there, except that she is a lightning rod, a figurehead, for this particular question.  Honestly, she is gone and many have said, well, that's the end of this media story. But it shouldn't be.  I am not a grieving mother, so Cindy can't speak for me with particularity, but her actions have crystallized the question for me.  Every conversation about her, pro or con, should turn very quickly to the message, not the messenger.  What is the noble cause?  Why are we there?  Who are we helping, and what are the consequences of our "help"?  Can we do it better? How?

      Anyone who spends time in the 'Cindy Sheehan Does/Doesn't Speak For Me' conflict wastes time.  As for me, I will focus on finding out what is the noble cause.  

    •  my letter to Mr. Griffin (none / 0)

      Yes,I saw this letter and it prompted me to write my letter to Mr. Griffin:

      Dear Mr. Griffin, first let me express my heart felt sympathy for your lost because no parent is above anyone else when it comes to loosing their child. I read your letter and I know it was written in the most sincere heart felt plea for wanting to share your pain with those you think are on the opposite side.    

      You must remember, neither Mrs. Sheehan nor anyone else is asking you to join or support her. To say she does not honor her son or understand your lost because she is standing up to a President you support is totally unmerited.

      In no way has she ever criticized your son or any fallen hero to this war.  On the contrary, her fight is driven by her pure love for her son, and the desire to support all the troops against a President she feels has lied to them.  Since she has never stood in your way of honoring your son, she too should be granted the same reverence.

      You are correct in stating she does not speak for you, but her intentions are not to speak for anyone but herself.  Just because there are many people who chose to support her does not warrant the feelings that she is being used.  As you have reached out to the ones on your side, her decision to do the same should be given equal value.  She has said many times that everyone needs to grieve in their own way and she respects whatever way one chooses.

      I think we should all agree to disagree with anyone who has lost a loved one in a war and I believe Mrs. Sheehan has always showed that position.  If you feel you or your son have been criticized by Mrs. Sheehan, I think it is the classic problem that most people have when it comes to politics.  Because of your support for this President you feel that anyone who is on the opposite side is automatically attacking you.   You would be better advised if you honored the Office of the President and not the man who holds the office.  As citizens who vote, any person holding this office should always be under the scrutiny of the public they serve.

      The only position Mrs. Sheehan has ever taken against President Bush is this War, a War that he elected to have and based on all the evidence received to date, she feels her son was unjustly sacrificed.    Even though you do not agree with this position, she undoubtedly is not alone in her opinion.  She has always stood on the side of the troops and whatever critical statements she makes is not a reflection of them, but a reflection of this President who has failed to serve the men and women who honorably serve him.

      Presidents are merely elected officials.  They come and go as we elect them and some make good presidents and some make bad ones.  Depending on your political views you can decide if this President is good or bad, but Cindy's love for her son should not be discredited because you can't separate the two.

      "Spying on the populace is a giant step toward totalitarianism." -- Bob Herbert

      by hws on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 08:21:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Top notch (none / 0)

    I can really feel the weight of personal experience behind your philosophy.  Yours are authoritative words.  Thanks for a great post.
  •  the next sellout (4.00 / 2)

    there is a limitation on the time that the Reserves can be on active duty. That period will be expiring for many by spring. Forces in Iraq will then have to decrease, as I understand it, without an act of Congress. I find it hard to believe that Congress would go along with changing that law, but???

    fouls, excesses and immoderate behavior are scored ZERO at Over the Line, Smokey!

    by seesdifferent on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 09:04:59 AM PDT

    •  DeLay is Bush's puppy (4.00 / 2)

      So of course he'll go along with whatever emperor Bush commands, especially since Bush has the power to pardon the exterminator for his many crimes.

      Don't be surprised by anything congress does, when have they stood up to Bush?  Watch the oil drilling in Alaska bill slip into a "budget" bill so that it can not be filibustered.

      Total Slime Republicans are in charge of congress, we are in danger every day they remain there.

  •  The disturbing thing is (3.66 / 3)

    that even after Tet, which is seen as a turning point at least in support of US citizens for the war, and the election of a different President(who had a secret plan for ending the war) the conflict lasted many years. I would like to think that we have learned something from Vietnam and we get our troops home now.

    CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. A. Bierce

    by irate on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 09:06:08 AM PDT

  •  Simple Short Answer (4.00 / 13)

    The President betrayed the Trust of the American People and the Congress  when he misled us into this war.

    We trusted you. You betrayed us.

    Overthrow the Government ~Vote~

    by missliberties on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 09:09:36 AM PDT

    •  and even if Bush didn't mislead (4.00 / 6)

      he betrayed the trust of the american people and those he sent to fight by not properly equipping them and ignoring planning (done by the State Dept., for God's sake!!) for the winning of the peace.

      Can anyone tell me what's "centrist" about using the Constitution to wipe your ass? - ActivistGuy

      by billlaurelMD on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 09:47:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A broken trust relationship (4.00 / 26)

    I was never so offended and angry  as I was listening to NPR yesterday to hear this smarmy religious author and putative expert on "Troops and their Faith" write an open letter of sympathy, read over the air that patiently explained to Ms. Sheehan that her son knowingly accepted the risk that he might find himself "on the altar of sacrifice" of behalf of his nation.

    I am a retired servicemember,  I have seen combat.  I understand the contract.  I understand the simple necessity of reciprocal trust up and down the chain of command, and the corrosive effect when that trust relationship breaks down.  

    And then this pastor dude goes on with his letter to Ms. Sheehan cautioning her not to let her grief addled judgement be exploited by those who would wish to advance agendas that have nothing to do with her son.

    I was physically ill.  And deeply saddened for my country.  

    Those who hear not the music-think the dancers mad

    by Eiron on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 09:18:53 AM PDT

    •  I heard that, too! (4.00 / 11)

      That on-air letter by Stephen Mansfield (here's a link to it) was such a one-way street of romanticized crap, it made me steam all the way home. While those in the armed forces give up a portion of their liberties when they volunteer to serve our country (for which we should be incredibly grateful), they should be able to trust that we won't endanger their lives by sending them off on fool's errands. The guest commentator apparently couldn't or wouldn't address that part of the bargain.

      Mansfield did, however, do me the inadvertent favor of reminding me that there were some incredible poems (Dulce et Decorum Est) written during the late 1910's. Yeah, it's a superb honor to die to help Duyba prove a false point or two. :(

      •  Just wrote to NPR about that letter... (4.00 / 13)

        Dear ATC:

        For all his education about war, Stephen Mansfield would do well to read Wilfred Owen's poem "Dulce et Decorum Est":

        If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
        Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
        And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
        His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
        If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
        Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
        Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
        Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,--
        My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
        To children ardent for some desperate glory,
        The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
        Pro patria mori.

        In the case of our current war in Iraq, the lies that brought us to this point make each soldier's death a tragedy that did not have to be. Mr. Mansfield might want to think of that the next time he gives anyone advice about how to view the death of a soldier.

        •  What was Mansfield thinking? (3.66 / 3)

          I caught the irony, too, when Mansfield cited Owens.  

          Either he didn't know the source and context of the quote that he lifted from-he probably has a "Bartletts for Pastors" of aphorisms and platitudes.

          or

          He did know Owens, and he just didn't care that someone would notice?

          Either way, it is sadly emblematic of this administration's treatment of the citizenry  Inconvenient facts are ignored, convenient ones are amplified with little scrutiny.   Platitudes, bromides and cliches count as argument, and ad hominem as attacks are the default posture.  And received knowledge transmitted from figures of authority should be accepted uncritically, and are an acceptable substitute for personal judgement.

          ugh   ugh  

          I am so angry....

          Those who hear not the music-think the dancers mad

          by Eiron on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 09:53:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  was he quoting Owen or Horace? (3.50 / 2)

            Horace was the original author of the epigram.

            I would be stunned, not to mention totally pissed-off, if he quoted Owen.  That's one of the premier anti-war poems of all time.  If he quoted it in support of his theme, he's a fucking cultural illiterate.

            Yes, there are still FEMINISTS on Daily Kos! Join the fabulous Supervixens every Thurs. night

            by hrh on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 11:23:01 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  NPR now supports wing-nuts (none / 1)

        This Tomlinson repug. hack has made sure of that.  So they present the standard Rush Liimbaugh line from the wing-nuts for half of their programming, leaving very little for reality based reporting.

        NPR is just about useless, fortunately the local stations still offer some good programming.  WYPR Baltimore has the Marc Steiner show every day from 12 to 2.

    •  Its the standard Wingnut talking point (3.90 / 11)

      I got this same point from my truckdriver brother-in-law who got it from Rush while driving his semi through PA and OH.  It's been around for more than a year, and was the talking point response to the first thousand killed.  My brother-in-law's son is probably going to Afghanistan shortly, and when I mentioned that he might be mutilated there (he signed up to get a trade), he said, 'Paul knew the risks when he signed).  It's heartless, and I don't think he really means it, but it sums up the talking point.

      The great thing about this diary is that it gives that talking point the perfect comeback.  Our boys did not sign up to be lied to.  Case closed.  This point must be hammered in again and again.  Our boys and girls are dying and losing limbs for an out and out lie.

      And of course, there is the other point that Cindy Sheehan is making every day by her vigil.  Bush doesn't give a shit.

    •  To be fair (none / 0)

      NPR did say that it was airing more than one viewpoint -- the other side is supposed to be on today.

      I'll be listening on my way home, I hope they do what they said.

      Otherwise, I'll also be writing them.

  •  Excellent! (none / 0)

    I wonder as to the contracts being breached by Bush's deceit..... why couldn't the troops so affected by Bush's lies and deception create a class action law suit?

    Hillary Abramoff Clinton, part of the Tan family.

    by 0hio on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 09:27:16 AM PDT

  •  Your insightful diary.... (3.92 / 14)

    brings to mind my uncle, who upon graduating from a prestigious private NYC high school in 1968, could've gone to any college he wanted, but chose instead to serve in what he believed was his generation's war, as my grandfather did in WWII.  Upon returning from Vietnam, he threw away his medals and campaigned for George McGovern.  Wing-nuts would call him anti-American or anti-troops, but it was his actual experiences as a soldier in Vietnam, seeing how the government was lying to the men and using them as cannon-fodder, that made him realize you can love your country while still despising your government or it's actions in your country's name.  

    "At my signal, unleash hell."

    by JerseyBredFilly on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 09:29:49 AM PDT

    •  Greg Maynard & Bernard Bray (4.00 / 3)

      both good friends.
      Both names on the Memorial in DC.

      it's the names that attract you. so many.

      there are already too many names for a memorial to the American dead in Iraq.

      they cannot live a balance life. there's is not a life to get on with any longer.

      Steven Mansfield must not have buried any friends.

      I applaud Cindy Sheehan's work.

    •  Mark Twain -- (4.00 / 3)

      Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it.

      Are you just going to gripe about it, or are you going to do something to change it?

      by smithbm on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 01:49:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Dead cops (4.00 / 9)

    You signed up, you knew what you were getting into.

    Dead fireman who ran into the towers?  It was your job.  I've got no sympathy for you.

    I like this compassionate conservatism.

    God it's so painful that something that's so close, is still so far out of reach. Tom Petty/Al Gore

    by Velvet Revolution on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 09:30:24 AM PDT

  •  I Volunteered (4.00 / 13)

    I spent 12 years in the military (7 years in the NG)  - I volunteered to protect my country. When wingnuts say the reserves knew that they might go, that is not true. The reserves are to protect this country - not die in war overseas that is based on chimpy's oil interests and slights against his father.  
  •  No one volunteered to be canon fodder (4.00 / 5)

    what this immoral bunch of thugs have done to the military is unspeakable. When Rumsfeld said "you go to war with the Army you have." I wanted to rip his heart out. The arrogange, the unmitigated gaul of these people is beneath contempt.  The people who excuse these deaths because the soldiers volunteered...deserve a special place in hell.

    Impeach the whole bunch!!!

    by regis on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 09:31:30 AM PDT

  •  It's the accountability stupid! (4.00 / 3)

    It is our (the citizens') responsibility to hold our leader accountable. They are not above the law. That's what I feel Cindy's  struggle is about more than anti-war. I'm not anti-war. I am anti- this unjustified war.
  •  If there was a button... (4.00 / 5)

    ...to vote for Diary of the Year, I think I'd have to give this one strong consideration. Bravo for articulating a cogent and well-reasoned answer to an argument that has been like nails on a chalkboard to me since Cindy Sheehan began her vigil.

    I support Obama because he will smite the Republican nominee hardest in November.

    by Devin on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 09:40:34 AM PDT

  •  The Viet Nam Analogy is Weak Because (4.00 / 12)

    after Tet, the issue remained the same war in the same place. That's not the case with Bush.

    What we have with Bush is a bunch of troops volunteering either during peace or right after 9/11, and suddenly being taken off the mission against our attackers and diverted to a fraudulent mission that was irrelevant to the threat. This isn't a lack of leadership--it's strong leadership, but criminal, treasonous leadership.

    That's where the integrity of the President, legislative branch and the electorate all come in. The lack of leadership to my eyes is in all the bungling of planning, execution and support that underlie most of our casualties.

    Actually we could have had a much brighter administration that would have handled the execution better; we'd have 1,000 or 1,500 fewer U.S. deaths, but it still would have been a criminal war.

    And this is where the critique that "they knew what to expect" collapses. It's not about whether troops may die. It's about where and why they may die.

    Now, what's worse, if we step through your list of the troop's assumptions, it's clear that the American system itself is broken right now. Important parts of it are literally not working. We can't hold our volunteers responsible for failing to recognize that when some of our finest minds have missed it.

    God only knows what a mess we'll have in our hands--or how much of it we'll really have any control over--if and when we're able to take over.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 09:57:45 AM PDT

  •  Bravo (none / 1)

    You tell 'em, tiger!

    Very highly recommended.

    Time flies, whether you're having fun or not.

    by Kimberley on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 10:01:02 AM PDT

  •  Young people have neither the (4.00 / 3)

    maturity or knowledge to know "what they are getting into."  When a country sends their young people into harm's way absent a clear and compelling national security situation, the society is no different than grossly negligent parents.

    Who among us would want to live with the lifetime knowledge that we had been forced to kill for no reason other than simply trying to stay alive and protect our "buddies."  At a deep psychic level, they know they are no longer whole.  Confronting that and trying to heal is the hardest thing they will ever have to do.  Many won't -- they'll live in a permanent state of denial and exhibit the psychopathic tendencies that the SBV displayed.  The domestic violence among returning vets is telling us how much these young men have been injured.  How words fail them.  They don't feel like heroes even if they can't articulate what they do feel.

    What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

    by Marie on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 10:04:22 AM PDT

    •  That's the way it is (3.75 / 4)

      You say, "Who among us would want to live with the lifetime knowledge that we had been forced to kill for no reason other than simply trying to stay alive and protect our 'buddies.'"

      I am sorry that you don't understand this, but once in combat, that is ALL there is.  No one kills for abstractions.

      •  I think you've nailed something here (3.50 / 2)

        that's always puzzled me about the perception of war among some our political allies - not being able to understand that survival instinct and camaraderie are the reasons that 99.9% of our troops tuck their chins in and barrel through war.

        I think there may be some people that gravitate to our military because they like the idea of blowing people away. Hell, if they weren't in our military they'd be bumping people off in convenience stores and along highways here at home. They're deranged. But they're rare.

        Still, it's strange to see people that are ordinarily pretty good at recognizing that forces beyond one's control can and do force adaptations (physical, intellectual, emotional and ethical) lose sight of the dynamic when we're talking about the US military. It's as though they stop thinking of US troops as regular people in an extraordinary situation. I don't understand that.

        Time flies, whether you're having fun or not.

        by Kimberley on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 10:33:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I am not so puzzled (none / 1)

          because if Germans (older ones) might have learned something out of their past, then it is the fact that leaders can beautifully abuse those noble feelings and humane instincts of cameraderie like "being your buddy's brother" and "tucking yourself and your chins together through a war".

          Have you ever seen how enthusiastically the Hitler Youth felt about "going through thick and thin together, in brotherly love putting your comrade and your leader before yourself"?

          These, under other circumstances honorable human emotions, can be badly exploited for very dishonorable purposes.  By themselves those "feelings" should not be a justification of why you agree to go through a war.

          Also, survival instincts come up only, when your survival is in danger. This doesn't cover the question of why and how your survival was put into danger and why or for what purpose you were ordered to put yourself into a life threatening situation.

          Fact is that those feelings of solidarity, brotherhood, cameraderie to stick it out together when they are all in the same boat, will ALWAYS come up, when they are needed, independent from the fact of having been put into that situation for good or for bad reasons.

          If you think about it, NOT being a comrade in combat, means you are a TRAITOR, and very few people can live with the thought to be a traitor.  

          Of course these are just my assumptions, I can't really know, I haven't gone through combat and am not a soldier.

      •  Not talking about in the moment -- (none / 1)

        Let's take the example of a riot squad cop and demonstrations where the commander orders them to fire and they kill demonstrators.  Does it make any difference if the demonstrators were carry some form of weapons and threatening others or were peaceful, unarmed and only appeared threatening because there were so many of them?  Do you really want to be protected by those who  experience those two events similarly in retrospect?  

        What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

        by Marie on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 11:21:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Don't get it (none / 0)

          I am not sure of your point or your example, but it seems you are talking about the world of abstractions rather than the real world.  

          In the real world, things are never black or white, but always grey.  Cops and soldiers may speak of abstract principles when away from the scene, but the heat of the moment is visceral, palpable, sweaty and smelly, chaotic.  I am not defending or attacking a philosophical or political position, but simply stating a truth.

          •  I'm not talking about (none / 0)

            abstract principles.  Humans look for meaning in their actions.  We are taught to value human life and that killing another human is wrong except when the bad of killing is less than the bad of not killing.  In the moment, that is what is in operation for all soldiers.  But to say that the experience remains isolated in that moment, never filters through that one has learned that killing is one of the most serious acts a human being can engage in and never leads to questions and doubt about why one was put in a position of having to kill is not consistent with what is seen in the psychology of people who have returned from war.  

            What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

            by Marie on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 11:59:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  yes, but (none / 1)

        once you are out of the moment of danger, where you just shoot and kill for saving yourself or your buddies, once you get a calm moment or get home and reflect of why you were ordered to kill and shoot, it becomes very important that you can come to the (honest and truthful) conclusion that there was no other choice than to engage in that war and killing.

        You don't get life-long psychiatric conditions in Veterans, when they can say to themselves that what they had to do was necessary and the only possible way of action.

        In wars of choice they can't honestly say that to themselves. And that's what makes them sick.

  •  There is a difference (4.00 / 9)

    I went in a few months before you, in October '67.  I joined not out of high-minded principle, but because of a very important difference between then and now:  the draft.  I knew that if I did not join, I'd probably end up a grunt, but that by volunteering I could go to flight school.  (I was an Army Huey pilot in VN 68-69.)

    Today, there is no pressure from the draft, so I have no idea why anyone would join, LOL.

    Personally, I wish they'd bring back the draft, with NO deferments or exceptions, just to make the chances of these stupid military adventures far less likely.  I intensely dislike the theory and practice of a volunteer military.  It's everyone's country, and we should all have a hand in protecting it, if need be.  A president would have more trouble starting a pre-emptive war if a bunch of random citizens were drafted and sent off to die.

  •  Arthur (none / 1)

    You've said something true that I have not seen articulated so well before. My hat is off.
  •  Recommended (none / 1)

    I just lurk on this place lately, but logged in so I could hit the recommended button.  Well said.
  •  good diary (4.00 / 2)

    it is hard to add a smart comment to Arthur's diary.  

    The responsibility of CiC is not to protect their soldiers, but to use the sacrifice implicit in their contract wisely.  Government is not the owner of soldiers lives, but a keeper of their trust.

    This is a strange war.  In Vietnam, USA was much stronger and the opponent was much stronger.  The rationale was partly false, but partly true.  Many Vietnamese hated us, but many were our friends.

    In this war, we sent a much smaller force to a precarious position between those who hate us and those who detest us.  The opponent is weaker, it has  hardly any external support (compare with Viet Cong supplied by China and Soviet Union that were beyond our ability to retaliate), but we have no true friends there, and thus no true rationale.

    Without local friends (and without forbidden weapons) there is no reason to fight.  We are bringing democracy and hope --- duh, they have elections in Iran, don'they?  Will Iraq be much more democratic?.  We secure strategic resources --- duh. why oil price climbs from 30 to 60?  We bring stability to the region with a new set of military bases --- duh, a triple nonsequitur.  Fighting terrorists --- duh. fighting or training?    Preventing civil war --- duh.

    It was not like that in Vietnam.  There was a global confrontation of two ideologies, there were domino pieces to fall, even if details were hazy and moral superiority lost somewhere on the way.

    •  Truly excellent epitome (none / 1)

      of the asininity of this project, which is wrecking our military, to the point that it will be unable to respond to a true threat.  The world now sees the United States as a paper tiger.  Even Latin American nations are no longer afraid of us (today's NYTimes).  Bush has extracted the teeth from our tiger.  Bloody asshole.  Why couldn't he have made his career at Enron, where the worst thing that happens is ripping off gulls who thought they were going to spend their retirement in Boca Raton.
  •  Eloquent essay (none / 1)

    The volunteer signing the contract is implicitly assuming not only "The integrity and honor of the commander in chief of the military and that CIC's skill, wisdom and understanding ... ", but the same characteristics of future CICs, in some cases more than 20 years in the future.
    •  That's a really big one, (none / 0)

      and a really good point.  When my husband joined 19 years ago, we didn't know there was a George W Bush in our future.  If we had, he would have gotten out 10 years ago.  

      Proudly providing chaos since 1964 -6.75, -8.31

      by jules too on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 10:41:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oath of enlistment (4.00 / 8)

    I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE.  SO HELP ME GOD.

    Interestingly, the oath only says that we're defending the constitution. Wish that we were even doing that much.

    OEF/OIF vet
    I've been called a left-wing extremist because I absolutely oppose torture. I can live with that.

    by jabbausaf on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 10:30:24 AM PDT

    •  There's a reason why it says that (none / 0)

      In pledging to uphold the Constitution, rather than allegiance to an individual, you hopefully eliminate an army that obeys only a specific individual.

      The military should put the Constitution first, foremost and always -- at least, according to their oath.

      Note also that it says 'all enemies, both foreign and domestic' -- which I assume was put in because of the civil war?

    •  Punctuation is important (none / 0)

      The semi-colons mean there are three different basic affirmations in that particular oath:(1) support & defend Consitution; (2) allegiance to Constitution; (3) Obey orders.
    •  It means that (none / 0)

      one understands what the constitution is intended to defend, especially the commander in chief should know.

      It also means one should be sure that the constitution is really protecting what it says it's protecting and that the consitution doesn't leave too many issues "up to interpretation accrding to your liking".

    •  To the three commenters (none / 0)

      I agree with all of you.

      OEF/OIF vet
      I've been called a left-wing extremist because I absolutely oppose torture. I can live with that.

      by jabbausaf on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 12:00:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I heard the "He Volunteered " argument (4.00 / 13)

    shouted at me at Crawford.  My husband did volunteer to protect this nation and he is very good at it.  We have Stoploss though being sent on new deployments to Iraq now, and we have people being shuffled around from the jobs they thought they were volunteering to do to uphold the Constitution to being ground troops with a gun in their hand in the middle of Iraq fighting for their lives moment by moment day after day and deployment after deployment.  Keep using that argument to abuse your troops and nobody will volunteer after this to protect the fucking assholes that populate this arrogant nation ever again!  It's like saying that being abused is our soldiers fault, they were the ones stupid enough to sign on the dotted line to  defend their nation and protect their people.  It's the most absurd, cutting one's nose off to spite one's face I have ever heard!  I doubt that after this many people will ever be so stupid to volunteer again!  First Vietnam and now Iraq?  The people of the United States of America have proven too many times now that they can't be trusted with the finest military on the planet!  After this it is going to take a long long time to convince the people of this nation that they can ever volunteer to serve in the military again and have confidence in taking the risk involved.  We haven't even heard the truth yet about Iraq either....all that will come out when our guys come home with all that PTSD and they have to begin to talk about it all in order to heal, and that will really blow our minds.  I live in and I am a member of such a stupid selfish egotistical nation of spoiled people!  It would make me sad if it didn't make me so sick!

    "People die. Strategies fail. Blame is laid. And we, as a nation, are made to look like assholes." - Brandon Friedman

    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 10:55:41 AM PDT

  •  "...what he was getting into..." (4.00 / 3)

    The funny thing is, when I hear about the hardships the Reservists and Nation Guard are going through -- the bankruptcies, the divorces, the extended tours, and of course the deaths and maimings -- I can only mutter at my radio, "That's not what they signed up for."  

    And even now, in the third year of our Glorious Struggle I hear advertisments from the Army Reserve that make it sound like you'll be a weekend warrior and line your pockets with dough.  Pay no attention to that pesky war -- we'll pay for your college!

    Deceptive?  Oh, a tad...

    "The Romans brought on their own demise, but it took them centuries. Bush has finished America in a mere 7 years." -- Paul Craig Roberts

    by Roddy McCorley on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 11:02:13 AM PDT

    •  And another thing... (none / 0)

      Every con man on the planet knows that his job is to steer the mark to a point where they willingly go the rest of the way.  In other words, they know what they're getting into -- or at least they think they do.

      (And that should be "National Guard" not "Nation Guard.")

      "The Romans brought on their own demise, but it took them centuries. Bush has finished America in a mere 7 years." -- Paul Craig Roberts

      by Roddy McCorley on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 11:09:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  False advertisements (none / 1)

      at that.  They are lining the recruits pockets with cash but then have the contractual right to get it back from the recruits if they don't serve their term or are catastrophically injured.

      Not the church. Not the state. Women will decide their fate.

      by JaciCee on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 01:37:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I've heard this argument, after posting about a (3.75 / 4)

    young, female helicopter pilot killed in Iraq, who was from a town near me.
    It infuriates me. It stuns me by how callous it is. (If they're willing to sign up to possibly die, who are we to care if they do? That's what it sounds like to me. The subtext often sounds like, If they're stupid enough to be willing to die for my country, while I sit here and enjoy the freedoms that buys me, what do I care? Let them die?)
    It makes me think Americans are stupid enough to deserve everything they're getting right now that George Bush has brought us. It makes me think we're  doomed and there's nothing we can do to save ourselves as a country. Makes me think of the Roman Empire, rotting from within.
    Maybe America is simply rotting from within.
    •  Doesn't buy you any freedoms either (none / 0)

      Did you throw in that bit about 'enjoy the freedoms that buys me' without questioning that facile assumption?

      America fought once for its freedoms - War of Independence - and never again. And never will. Pearl Harbour? The Japanese didn't intend to occupy Hawaii - no threat to freedoms there - let alone the mainland. They were driven, but not demented.

      This war is not about anyone's freedoms. Not the Iraqis', and sure as hell not the Americans'.

      Those KIAs are not buying Americans anything. Except for a very small handful that benefit big-time.

      Residency doesn't make a Presidency.

      by gotgat54 on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 12:15:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well then... (4.00 / 2)

    My response is simple...

    "You knew what you were doing when you voted for Bush, so why don't you go to Iraq to make it right?"

  •  Not just contract---it is a covenant (4.00 / 4)

    This is a wonderful post. I have had similar thoughts banging around my head, but you have expressed this important point with eloquence and the authority of experience.

    Our government,and more important, the people who are that government, owe our civilian directed military more than a contractual duty. We have made a covenant with each soldier that we will honor their service under authority of elected civilian leaders by only asking them to risk their lives in engagements that are protecting and defending our borders and our civil liberty.

    This administration has failed the troops on so many levels and therefore we fail those troops.

    I do not understand how this cannot be clearly stated by an opposition party. This is not treason, or not supporting the troops, or "agin" us--this is honoring the covenant we hold with those troops.

    Governments have contracts with mercenaries, we have a covenant with the Americans serving in the armed forces in our defence.

  •  Contract broken (4.00 / 6)

    Thanks, Arthur. I've been blithering to anyone that will pretend to listen that the country has broken its contract with the military, but it's much more effective coming from one of those betrayed. The way I put it was:
    1. In return for you