Pastor Roger,
I agree entirely with your point that if one signs up to go to military school, or joins the armed forces, then one had better be prepared to fight. There do seem to be some troubling cases in Iraq though, where soldiers are being forced, against their will to stay for much longer than their terms of service, which may be problematic in the future.
This too is a part of their contract. Their service contract can be extended for a period without their agreement to it. They signed that dotted line. They should be aware of what they are signing before they sign it. As with any contract read before you sign.
I must say that I disagree with your statement:
"The only way Iraq is like Viet Nam is in the way these people are reacting to it and denigrating our Soldiers and Sailors."
I will not tell you that the two conflicts are identical, but to make a statement such as yours, is to under-analyze the situation. I beleive the two are similar for several reasons.
1. They are both wars fought with a conventional army against a guerilla style force.
I will concede to the fact that they are both a guerilla style force that we are now fighting.
2. The defence department grossly misjudged the nature of the enemy in both cases. I think that in both instances, the military elite felt that victory would be swift and easy, not realizing that the real fight would not be against uniformed or conventional forces, but in the streets.
This is not true. Our troops were told from the start that this would be the case. Yes, we were hoping for swift and easy results but were well aware that it may not be so.
3. The incramental increase of force size. I think you will find the number of u.s. servicemen and women in Iraq has and will grow, much as did throughout the 60's in Vietnam.
This is no different than in any war that we have fought in. In WWI and WWII the number of
U.S. Servicemen and
Women were increased in numbers in the war as the need warranted.
4. The lack of a clear exit strategy.
Again no different than any other war that we have fought in. Plans for an "exit strategy" can not be made in advance. There are to many variables to consider until that time comes and what is being planned certainly isn't being disseminated to the general public for obvious reasons to anyone that understands the elements of war.
As a result of these similarities, I think that the U.S. has a tough fight on its hands. Other than the fact that no modern army has ever defeated a guerilla style opponent, I beleive that a weak conventional defence to the U.S. initial onslaught was part of the Iraqi plan all along. If any guerilla leader can take one lesson from Vietnam, its if you drag out a fight long enough, Americans may lose their stomach for flag draped coffins. I'm not saying that this is neccesarily the case here, but it is certainly worth some time and thought.
Finally, I do not beleive that speaking out against the war is denegrating the fine men and women of the armed forces. I have the utmost in respect for anyone who dons their nations uniform. To borrow a vietnam era slogan: agianst the war, not the soldiers.
thanks,
thom
"against the war, not the soldiers" does in fact denigrate our troops. Our troops are a part of that war, that war is a part of them. You cannot separate the two. It is what they are doing. To tell them any different belittles them and what they are doing. It causes many problems just as it did during Viet Nam. Low troop moral, more of our troops being killed, support of the enemy giving the enemy more fuel and determination to keep fighting. This is what happened in Viet Nam and is again happening now.
People need to stop playing this game and let the troops do their job.
Show Posts
??
