Letters to the Editor
-
the past haunts the future
Many of these generals came of age during the vietnam era, and are seeing it all happen again right before their eyes.
-
Real stand-up guys...
Well, I'm all busted up about these military types who are going to hold their noses for five seconds to vote for Democrats, and then run back into the Republican party for the next 10 election cycles.
If that's as far as they are willing to go to support the Democrats, then they are as deluded about the prospects for successful American democracy as Wolfowitz was about the prospects for Iraqi democracy...
-
Self-determination
"Either partition it into three countries or go into a loose confederation and have assurances on the sharing of natural resources," Eaton agreed. "I think that is the best we can get out of this deal now."
*We*? The USA? Why in hell are we owed a good deal? Why aren't the Iraqis owed a good deal? They're the people who have suffered other nation's solutions for 100 years. People who built a vibrant, advanced, secular, and potentially wealthy, independent state despite the burden of a cruel dictatorship. Why can't they sort it out?
Well, of course, they can. It just isn't in Washington's interest for them to succeed on their own. And it's the job of the military to sustain that policy, under either party. So, either get a new world-view, generals, or dig in.
-
Democratic oversight?
How about just some adult supervision?
-
General Mayhem
Good for these Generals. A whole lot more guts than Colonoscopy Powell, who was in a position to make an impassioned national scene before this horrendous bloodbath started. but eye-rack was NEVER a country. It was an amalgam drawn up by the British, and was a shotgun marriage at best. The Kurds hate the Iraqis, and have, essentially, their own independent province. The faux government we've installed has no chance-absofuckinglutely none- of quelling the violence. They can barely control the green zone with us there. Our presence does nothing to improve the chances of a consolidated Iraq, and less to stop the inevitable fratricidal violence. It's their land; let 'em work it out and draw the map themselves. Get out now. As in immediately, with a small tactical force left close by to squash any Al Qaida activity that wells up-which it will, thanks to us. Bushit and his toady supporters have visited one of the worst foreign policy debacles in Murkin history on us. We absolutely need to take at least one house of congress, and being hearings- televised- in January. These fascist bastards need to go to prison, and not a minimum security vacation spot. They deserve pound yer ass time.
-
Servicemembers have a responsibility to not advocate politically
This article frustrated me because it advocates a blurring of the lines between military members and their cilivian leadership. I'm not arguing that retired military members don't have the right to speak out - they absolutely do. But I am frustrated with the idea that well-meaning people are advocating for active duty (not retired) military members to speak out similarly.
Servicemembers have a responsibility to NOT use their military rank or position to advocate politically.
I'm saying that as a service member. One of the things that I'm proud of about our military is the perhaps inaccurate illusion I've had for my past 15 years of service, that we in the Armed Services have a tradition of not attempting to publicly influence the decisions of our civilian leaders.
It's an important part of our democractic society that service members vote, obviously, and nothing should prevent them from voting their conscience, even if that means voting against their Commander in Chief. It also means that if they're high enough in the chain of command to work directly with civilian leadership, and their insight and counsel is sought, then they should give it, honestly, openly, and without fear of retribution.
But they should give that insight and counsel privately, not in a way that makes it appear that they in some way speak for the military against the civilian government. It's OK for me to write an Op Ed to the New York Times speaking out against the war and sign it with a name that's not publicly tied to the military. It's not OK for me to write that same Op Ed and sign it with my name and rank, or sign it with my name if I'm a military member who also happens to be a public figure (e.g., General Colin Powell's interview with the New York Times regarding the dangers of fighting a war in Bosnia while he was still an active duty officer).
The line between a politically concerned military, that provides private advice to civilian leadership and votes its conscience in private, and a politically active military, that feels that it knows better than its civilian leadership and has the right to attempt to influence its decision-making through the bully pulpit of public speech, is a vast one. It is the line that, once crossed, allows a Thai General to decide that he has the right to overthrow an elected government.
Those well-meaning people who advocate for serving military members to publicly advocate against their Commander in Chief, do a grave disservice to the young men and women who thus come to believe that the "Appeal for Redress" is intended for political speech. It is an intended to provide a final appeal when an attempt to pursue a grievance through the chain of command has failed - it is not intended to influence the political course or the political will of our nation.
When we swear our oath to protect the Constitution of the United States (if an officer), or to protect the Constitution and obey the orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over us (if enlisted), we have a commitment to abide by that oath. Our country is made stronger by a professional military that is absolutely subordinate to its civilian leadership, regardless of how much we believe that the civilian leadership is doing the wrong thing.
-
what the?
What the f73k did those idiots think anyway? Didn't they even have a clue about how incompetant this gang of thugs are? Chowder heads...it's too bad that not one active duty general has the balls to speak out. They are all "retired" or "former".
I just don't know..