When one accuses the armed forces of one's country, as a collective, of "primarily" pepretrating murders, one should rest upon extremely firm ground. Hedges provides zero examples of murders committed by American forces in his article.

The young 18-year-old soldier was surely not guilty of murder; probably not even reckless or negligent homicide. It is, in fact, the case that jihadists sometimes drive truck bombs into American patrol bases and checkpoints. The soldier had no way of knowing whether this was the case or not--and, as a nervous teenager cast into a perplexing and deadly environment--responded to a perceived threat. This does not make the deaths of the innocent Iraqis any less tragic; it does make the soldier on the gun innocent of murder. Hedges does not provide any details of the incident; perhaps the soldier went through the proper escalation of force procedures, which includes warning shots. The deaths of the Iraqis in this situation speaks to the unavoidable tragedies and unnecessary losses of human life that result from the maintenance of a pointless occupation that exposes American soldiers the remorseless tactics of nihilistic jihadists. It does not speak to the blood-drenched murderousness of the American soldier.

The colonel's reported comments are indeed reprehensible and indicative of the moral problems existent, if not pervasive, at senior levels. I would argue, however, that the moral problem revealed is not murderousness but apathy. The primary concern of senior officers appears to be the advancement of their careers; they have no particular concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people (and a distressingly limited concern for their own soldiers, at times). If job advancement requires them to have their soldiers to kill lots of Iraqis, they will have them do so; if it requires them to mouth platitudes about helping the Iraqi people and have their soldiers pass out soccer balls and hugs, they will do that. The colonel was probably angered about how this incident would adversely impact his unit's efforts in their campaign. His comments reflect a casual racism disappointing in a well-educated professional; they reflect a values-free mentality that rejects all spiritual and moral calculations in favor of purely operational; but they do not reflect zeal for bloodshed or murderousness.

In my experience, bloodthirstiness and murderousness is mostly absent from the enlisted ranks as well. I think it is accurate to say that the vast majority of American soldiers sign up for a mix of material and ideological/patriotic reasons. Very few, even in the combat arms, actually look forward to killing and/or being shot at--they see it as a necessary hazard of their chosen profession. If, as Hedges alleges, most American soldiers are casual racists who view Iraqis as subhuman darkies fit only for killin', then (as another letter writer points out) they must do a great job of concealing their sentiments, as the counterinsurgency mission being conducted often requires frequent non-violent contact with the Iraqi populace. On the relatively rare occasions when American soldiers do murder Iraqis in theater, it is significant news: witness Salon's recent article on the murder of unarmed Iraqis by snipers in 1st Battalion 501st PIR (and the snipers' subsequent trials).

None of this is to deny that the occupation of Iraq is a cancer on the soul of the U.S. Army or that it is a dehumanizing and morally degrading experience for all parties concerned. It *is* to deny that the war is "primarily about murder." It is also to denounce as reprehensible this kind of slanderous and overheated rhetoric. Numerous letter writers have praised Hedges' prose as searing, etc. but such sentiments as "The vanquished know the essence of war -- death. They grasp that war is necrophilia. They see that war is a state of almost pure sin, with its goals of hatred and destruction" are both unoriginal, kind of nonsensical, and really unspecific. (War *is* sexual attraction to the dead? What is "almost pure sin?" How can war, which isn't a person, have goals of any kind? And how can hatred be a goal?) Is this journalism, as it appears to be at the outset, or generic philosophical rumination about how wicked war is?

(On a final note, Hedges' prose about officers in pursuit of the Combat Infantry Badge seems to reveal someone who doesn't really know what he's talking about. Officers don't earn CIBs (or Combat Action Badges, the non-infantry equivalent) by sending their soldiers' into harm's way; this badge must be earned by personal exposure to enemy action. One charge that *cannot* be reasonably leveled against the officer corps is physical (as opposed to moral) cowardice. Officers, even senior ones, routinely place themselves in harm's way in Iraq.

Yes, this pathetic cluelessness by a non-news organization is so much more worthy of comment than articles of impeachment against the President being read in the House of Representatives.

Yes, a Jewish multimillionaire media magnate (look at that alliteration!) from New York City is *just* what Obama needs to enhance his support in the rural, conservative South.

*This week* should be "All about Hillary Clinton and her historic campaign?" Are you kidding me? This week, and all the rest until November, should be about putting a Democrat in the White House. Said Democrat happens to be Barack Obama, not Hillary Clinton, who lost the race *20 fucking days ago.* The adulation of Hillary Clinton is getting downright bizarre, at this point.

Barack Obama needs to compete with McCain on experience, particularly foreign policy experience. Particulary military experience. Picking the female governor of a landlocked state who has never been anything but a domestic civil servant is not a good idea.

Additionally, Governor Sebelius may be able to keep and hold a governorship in a deeply Republican state, but how much appeal would she have to the voters in what is Obama's biggest problem area, Appalachia? Jim Webb is the man (but he will indeed have to address head-on the sexism issues, as I believe he did when he was running for the Senate seat he currently holds).