"Think of it this way: if you were, say, 17-years-old, living in an crumbling American small town, with no job prospects beyond Walmart, no money for college, no savings account whatsoever, worried about your future, and you watched ‘Carrier,’ would you be tempted to go out and enlist?"

Thanks for saying that. There's a lot of military fetishism that passes uncommented on in these here posts and in the media and society in general. I for one, have had it. If even on the left we are constantly honoring the military (as Clinton did in her statement about the Pentagon issue--"criticism did not impugn 'the honor and patriotism of our dedicated career military officers,') then how we can teach our children not to go off and join the military as soon as they are able. For most, that's while they are still in high school. Would you even trust a 17 or 18 year old with your car? Much less making a decision that will irrevocably change their lives and fuck up another country?

I for one am happy to impugn the "honor and patriotism" of the honored career military officers. Every person who willingly served in this debacle has a lot to answer for. And the people who constantly recycle these tired old saws about honor and patriotism (when the military, and the people who serve in it, have excelled in the past 6 years only in undermining those very values).

I say all these things with a son in the Marines ready to ship to Iraq. A lot of that mistake is my fault for not being a good enough dad, and a lot of it his for being an irresponsible teen (I put it in the same category as drag racing), but the people who are still out there cheering on the IDEA of military service have a stake in the game too!

Someday we may have a military we can be proud of; I assume that will be the day we stop using it to build and protect our empire. Until then, stop making things worse.

"If you join an organized gang of thugs engaged in murder, theft, intimidation, and destruction then do not claim to be surprised when you are ordered to commit heinous crimes. Do not claim shock."

Indeed.

"I'd like it if the vast majority of society as a whole were highly skeptical about war, grudgingly accepted the necessity of a defense capability but only went into using it kicking and screaming. Sure, I'd like it if things were not the way they were when I was in, e.g. not being able to go downtown without getting jumped because you were a soldier ... but all the reverance you see now would have creeped me out, even then. I'd also like to see some of the benefits a young person would get form the military ... discipline, self respect, confidence, the chance to meet and work with other people from around your country and learn to understand them ... available through some more constructive means, like reactivating the CCC (which is where, in the American army, many of those values originated during the army's growth in WWII)."

You took the words right out of my mouth. I think any nation would be mad not to have defensive capabilities, but when was the last time that was our strict aim. The DOD, used to be called the Department of War in more honest times. I also tried to convince my son to join the California Conservation Corps or the Coast Guard. But, sadly, they do not have a multi-million dollar marketing arm, that makes joining seem like an extended tour of duty in a video game.

I recently had a heated exchange with an armed forces recruiter and he told me that:

"When an 18 year old kid wants to go somewhere he can't even find on the map to protect his country, that to me is incredibly patriotic"

The logic is inscrutable and sadly all too prevalent in our society.

I simply can't believe you attacked Deucey for this.

"Greenwald!

I have been a member of Salon for years now, and all I can say is that Glenn Greenwald is the best political analyst/journalist that I know of. This guy is a relentless stud.

(Some unsolicited advice: Keep it up, dude, but have someone around you (a trusted reader) who helps you keep your tone civil. In the long run, you will far more effective and respected if you do so."

Talk about concern trolling; you guys could teach workshops at the Learning Annex. I don't think Deucey is the first to note that Glenn's tone can veer into screed, nor is he the first to observe that it's a weakness in his writing. Glenn's critiques are devastating and well-cited and researched, but I have seen the invective make his charges much easier to dismiss by untalented hacks than they should be. I can't see how anyone could misread Deucey's comments (especially when reading it in the context of his archive) the way you two have.

If you're alleging that I'm one of your sockpuppets, I not only deny the allegations. I deny the allegator.

That's arguably the nicest thing anyone's ever said to me here.

"As usual with Gordon's articles, nothing is done here other than uncritically repeating Bush administration claims under the cover of anonymity. Virtually every paragraph in this article is nothing more a mindless recitation of uncorroborated assertions which he copies from Bush officials and then weaves into a news narrative, with the phrase "American officials say" tacked on at the end or the phrase "according to officials" unobtrusively interspersed in the middle"

I too looked for some kind of countervaling opinion, but was a little surprised to find none. How easy is it to find a think tank or university department that could spit a blurb mildly contradicting the assertion, while basically affirming it? This is just lazy disinformation. I expect better propagandizing for my dollar.