I have no idea why you even post here, but the ones who are pulling the "stunt" are your boys in the GOP--transparently and deliberately extending a hopeless, chaotic war in order to save their political asses and dump the messy problem of withdrawal (what yammering dipsh*ts like you will call "failure of nerve") onto the Democrats who will take over the White house next year.

This hypocritical and sickening shirking of service while urging on others to sacrifice and die, all the while berating and attacking those who have actually served, has reached an astonishing pinnacle. And with the media complicit, it is at a stage where it seems to be accepted as the norm. But it was not always so, and a simple look at some numbers illustrates how craven are the war's cheerleaders and how empty are the media's standards.

As Al Smith used to say, "Let's look at the record."

At least four men who had served in the U.S. Congress were killed in action in the Mexican War. Many Congressmen had sons in the service, and Henry Clay, the most influential U.S. Senator of his era, saw his son killed at the Battle of Buena Vista in that war.

In the Civil War, President Lincoln had one son eligible for service and he went. Both of Vice President Hannibal’s two sons wore the blue. Mary Todd Lincoln had 7 brothers plus numerous brothers-in-law who saw action in the war, a number of whom were killed. No fewer than 23 men who had served in the U.S. Congress were killed in the Civil War. The number of sons of Congressmen who served in that war would be so high that counting would be impossible. And it was not merely politicians that went and sent their sons – it was all of society. Authors were not excluded (Kagan take note); Oliver Wendell Holmes traveled to Maryland to try and find his son, who was severely wounded at Antietam.

In World War II, FDR had four sons that served, and FDR Jr., a Naval officer, was decorated for bravery in the battle of Casablanca. John F. Kennedy's millionaire ambassador-father pulled strings to get JFK in - not out of - Navy combat service. Marine Sgt. Peter Saltonstall, the son of the Massachusetts Republican senator, was killed in action, and Bay State Senator Henry Cabot Lodge actually resigned from that body to become a tank commander in North Africa. And the 19-year-old son of FDR's closest advisor, Harry Hopkins, who lived in the White House, was a private killed at Iwo Jima. This latter story strikes me as a jarring anachronism - the fact that one of the most powerful Americans of his age (Hopkins) could lose a 19-year-old son serving as a private in the Marines. Not so today.

Even during the Vietnam War, when the powerful tended to avoid personal service, out of 234 eligible sons of Senators and Congressmen, 28 served in Vietnam. Now Senator Jim Webb of Virginia is unique on Capitol Hill in having a son serving in Iraq.

Yes, the nation's elites used to see themselves as part of the American people, and were prepared, and on occasion eager, to share the risks to which they exposed the nation. Now they are sunk in arrogance, greed and isolation, and suffer from the delusion that they are a separate and superior class altogether.

That was another slogan from long ago and so very similar to Fred Kagan's "Fight your way home, boys!"

...that the troll nabalzbbfr has no idea what an S1 or a G1 does.

abbb1 writes: "Fat faces, chickenhawks? Fred Kagan would've been just as wrong if he looked like Wesley Snipes and served in the delta force for the last 30 years."

The problem isn't just that Kagan and his chickenhawk buddies are wrong. It's that they haven't earned the right to say what they say.

Sure, they have freedom of speech, and they can blather on about any topic. There's no law against it. But there's a different between having the freedom to say something, and having the moral right to say it.

When one advocates for seemingly perpetual warfare fought by other people, increased military strength accomplished by other people serving under arms, no rest for troops surrounded by a country full of enemies, etc. -- you have to earn the moral right to say that. And you earn the right by being in combat, or at least by having put on the uniform at some point.

Kagan's obesity is not necessarily a significant factor, and not something we would typically focus on. But in his case it's an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual deformity. For him, he says troops under constant threat of injury or death should receive no rest, even as he apparently can't summon the energy to spend time on the Stairmaster or treadmill.

The Gospel speaks of those who "bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers." Obese or not, Kagan and his chickenhawk friends are modern manifestations of exactly that. In a just world those sons of bitches would be forced to drive fuel trucks in Iraq, where in their off hours they could write articles about the importance of perpetual war.

At first, when I heard the theme of the Bush lie-fest was "Return on Success" I thought I understood it, then suddenly the second, and real meaning, of what he said landed on me:

Meaning 1: Return on success: We will get a huge benefit on our "investment" of blood and treasure if we succeed in Iraq.

Meaning 2: Soldiers and Marines, if you ever want to return, you are going to have to fight your way home. In other words, you can return upon your success. Fail to win, and you can stay and rot.

But don't expect Bush and the Republicans to give you better armor, or try to get the Iraqis to stand up. You just need to fight harder!

Suck it up and drive on! "Arbeit macht frei"

Jawol, mein fuhrer! To the Eastern Front!