a soldier's doubt [Archive] - MacRumors Forums

3rdpath

Sep 17, 2003, 03:45 PM

COMMENTARY in today's l.a. times
Paths of Glory Lead to a Soldier's Doubt
An American carrying out his duty in Iraq wonders aloud why he's there.

COMMENTARY

_By Tim Predmore, Tim Predmore is on active duty with the 101st Airborne Division near Mosul, Iraq. A version of this essay appeared in the Peoria (Ill.) Star Journal.

For the last six months I have participated in what I believe to be the great modern lie: Operation Iraqi Freedom.
After the horrific events of Sept. 11, 2001, and throughout the battle in Afghanistan, the groundwork was being laid for the invasion of Iraq. "Shock and awe" was the term used to describe the display of power the world was to view upon the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. It was to be a dramatic show of strength and advanced technology from within the arsenals of the American and British militaries.
But as a soldier preparing to take part in the invasion of Iraq, the words "shock and awe" rang deep within my psyche. Even as we prepared to depart, it seemed that these two great superpowers were about to break the very rules they demanded that others obey. Without the consent of the United Nations, and ignoring the pleas of their own citizens, the U.S. and Britain invaded Iraq. "Shock and awe"? Yes, the words correctly described the emotional impact I felt as we embarked on an act not of justice but of hypocrisy.
From the moment the first shot was fired in this so-called war of liberation and freedom, hypocrisy reigned. After the broadcasting of recorded images of captured and dead U.S. soldiers over Arab television, American and British leaders vowed revenge while verbally assaulting the networks for displaying such vivid images. Yet within hours of the deaths of Saddam Hussein's two sons, the U.S. released horrific photographs of the two dead brothers for the world to view. Again, a "do as we say and not as we do" scenario.
As soldiers serving in Iraq, we have been told that our purpose here is to help the people of Iraq by providing them the necessary assistance militarily as well as in humanitarian efforts. Then tell me where the humanity was in the recent Stars and Stripes account of two children taken to a U.S. military camp by their mother, in search of medical care. The children had been unknowingly playing with explosive ordnance they had found and as a result were severely burned. The account tells how they, after an hourlong wait, were denied care by two U.S. military doctors. A soldier described the incident as one of many "atrocities" he had witnessed on the part of the U.S. military.
Thankfully I have not been a personal witness to any atrocities, unless of course you consider, as I do, this war to be the ultimate atrocity.
So then, what is our purpose here?
Was this invasion because of weapons of mass destruction, as we so often have heard? If so, where are they? Did we invade to dispose of a leader and his regime because they were closely associated with Osama bin Laden? If so, where is the proof? Or is it that our incursion is a result of our own economic advantage? Iraq's oil can be refined at the lowest cost of any in the world. Coincidence?
This looks like a modern-day crusade not to free an oppressed people or to rid the world of a demonic dictator relentless in his pursuit of conquest and domination but a crusade to control another nation's natural resource. At least to me, oil seems to be the reason for our presence.
There is only one truth, and it is that Americans are dying. There are 10 to 14 attacks on our servicemen and -women daily in Iraq, and it would appear that there is no end in sight.
I once believed that I served for a cause: "to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States." Now I no longer believe that; I have lost my conviction, as well as my determination. I can no longer justify my service for what I believe to be half-truths and bold lies.
With age comes wisdom, and at 36 years old I am no longer so blindly led as to believe without question. From my arrival at Ft. Campbell, Ky., last November, talk of deployment was heard, and as that talk turned to actual preparation my heart sank and my doubts grew. My doubts have never faded; instead my resolve and commitment have.
My time is almost done, as well as that of many others with whom I serve. We have all faced death in Iraq without reason or justification. How many more must die? How many more tears must be shed before Americans awake and demand the return of the men and women whose job it is to protect them rather than their leader's interest?

zimv20

Sep 17, 2003, 04:06 PM

interesting that he attributes his age to his doubt.

thanks for the post

Desertrat

Sep 17, 2003, 09:22 PM

"What the (bleeeeeep) am I doing here?" probably dates back to Alexander the Great, if not long before...

I was lucky. I saw Manila in 1949, before it was fully rebuilt; I only did Occupation Duty in Korea in 1954. No "shots fired in anger" in my direction.

But, it's an age-old question and quite legitimate. There aren't any "good" answers.

I'm just glad I was able to get some idea of the harsh realities of war seeing the aftermath and from those who BTDT. My father; guys I served with.

I imagine it's a lot more of a shock to today's US citizens than to those of a couple of generations back...

'Rat

tazo

Sep 17, 2003, 09:40 PM

maybe he shouldnt have gone into the war if he didnt want to.... :rolleyes:

pivo6

Sep 17, 2003, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by tazo
maybe he shouldnt have gone into the war if he didnt want to.... :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Are you suggesting that he deserts?

I think he has a problem with the reasons that we attacked Iraq, not with war in general.

IJ Reilly

Sep 17, 2003, 10:14 PM

I'll repeat what I said before: a member of the armed services should not publicly complain about or question their duty assignments. It is not their business to evaluate where they are sent and why.

uburoibob

Sep 17, 2003, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I'll repeat what I said before: a member of the armed services should not publicly complain about or question their duty assignments. It is not their business to evaluate where they are sent and why.

Your quote is the age-old excuse for facism and the rise of the Nazis. American soldiers are citizens, still, and as such can be concerned about whether the leader of the country is doing the right thing. And with Bush clearly doing the wrong thing, I, for one, am glad that some of our servicepeople ARE starting to question this administration. I am glad other politicians are starting. I am glad that so many citizens recognize the regime in Washington for what it is. We need all of the public support we can muster to unseat the appointed president, and to try and impeach the liar.

tazo

Sep 17, 2003, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by uburoibob
Your quote is the age-old excuse for facism and the rise of the Nazis. American soldiers are citizens, still, and as such can be concerned about whether the leader of the country is doing the right thing. And with Bush clearly doing the wrong thing, I, for one, am glad that some of our servicepeople ARE starting to question this administration. I am glad other politicians are starting. I am glad that so many citizens recognize the regime in Washington for what it is. We need all of the public support we can muster to unseat the appointed president, and to try and impeach the liar.

The army works because they are united as one; without dedication like that there is no way we would effectively battle in today's world. It is not the place of the soldier to question his authority; i thought that was learned in bootcamp, no?

The soldier has as much place discussing his anti-war views as johnny depp or the dixie chicks.

IJ Reilly

Sep 18, 2003, 12:54 AM

Originally posted by tazo
The army works because they are united as one; without dedication like that there is no way we would effectively battle in today's world. It is not the place of the soldier to question his authority; i thought that was learned in bootcamp, no?

The soldier has as much place discussing his anti-war views as johnny depp or the dixie chicks.

Actually Johnny Depp and the Dixie Chicks have much more of a place to discuss their views, because they are civilians. The point I'm making about authority is that the military in the US serves a civilian authority. To put it bluntly, they get the right to shoot at people but we the citizens of the US get to tell them who they may shoot at.

pseudobrit

Sep 18, 2003, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by tazo
The army works because they are united as one; without dedication like that there is no way we would effectively battle in today's world.

The talent of natural soldiers would be wasted if all they did was follow orders blindly. They are masters of improvisation and impulse. Free and independent thinking is required to be a good soldier.
They must operate as a unit, yes, but to beat all individualism out of them would be foolish.

Desertrat

Sep 18, 2003, 06:27 PM

The deal is, you don't go public to the media with your gripes, not while on active duty. After your tour as an EM, gripe to your heart's content. Officers can resign in protest, and have done so. Hackworth is of course one of the more notable.

While you're in service, and you think you've seen Illegal Bad Things, write your friends or family, and let them write their Congressmen. Or, take it up the chain of command or to the Inspector General.

Griping and questioning is proper. But there are proper ways to do proper things.

'Rat

uburoibob

Sep 18, 2003, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by tazo
The army works because they are united as one; without dedication like that there is no way we would effectively battle in today's world. It is not the place of the soldier to question his authority; i thought that was learned in bootcamp, no?

The soldier has as much place discussing his anti-war views as johnny depp or the dixie chicks.

I wish that Hitler's soldiers or Saddam's soldiers or Mussolini's soldiers, etc, etc, had questioned their leaders during those campaigns. This is an illegal war, predicated on lies on top of lies. And those lies came from the current American regime. It's definitely time for a change, and I think a lot of soldiers are beginning to figure that out...

IJ Reilly

Sep 18, 2003, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by uburoibob
I wish that Hitler's soldiers or Saddam's soldiers or Mussolini's soldiers, etc, etc, had questioned their leaders during those campaigns. This is an illegal war, predicated on lies on top of lies. And those lies came from the current American regime. It's definitely time for a change, and I think a lot of soldiers are beginning to figure that out...

The examples you cite are all fascist/autocratic states. We don't live in one of those. Our military is under civilian control. If we don't like how our leaders are using the military, it's our duty to show them the door at the next election. That's what I hope to play my small part in doing next year. In the mean time, our men and woman at arms need to watch what they say and observe the chain of command, which ends at the top with a person we elect.

tazo

Sep 18, 2003, 08:27 PM

shadowfax

Sep 18, 2003, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by uburoibob
I wish that Hitler's soldiers or Saddam's soldiers or Mussolini's soldiers, etc, etc, had questioned their leaders during those campaigns. This is an illegal war, predicated on lies on top of lies. And those lies came from the current American regime. It's definitely time for a change, and I think a lot of soldiers are beginning to figure that out... you "clearly" have a very balanced view of things.

you should learn to have enough respect not to use subtle ad hominems. there's no such thing as an american regime. regime is not a term for elected administrations. there is no american regime. This is also not an illegal war. not by US law. and furthermore, this is not "clearly" an immoral war. it may be clear to you, but it isn't to me.

tazo

Sep 18, 2003, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by shadowfax

you should learn to have enough respect not to use subtle ad hominems. there's no such thing as an american regime. regime is not a term for elected administrations. there is no american regime. This is also not an illegal war. not by US law. and furthermore, this is not "clearly" an immoral war. it may be clear to you, but it isn't to me.

I agree with ya; although I am sure we all know about the political discussion regime that must insert atleast one of the following words/phrases/statements in every post, regardless of context and/or relevance:
liberal, conservative, immoral,
regime, nazi(sm), fasci(sm/st), socialist and
one combination word randomly made up such as immoralsocioliberalnazi.

shadowfax

Sep 18, 2003, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by tazo
I agree with ya; although I am sure we all know about the political discussion regime that must insert atleast one of the following words/phrases/statements in every post, regardless of context and/or relevance:
liberal, conservative, immoral,
regime, nazi(sm), fasci(sm/st), socialist and
one combination word randomly made up such as immoralsocioliberalnazi. mine don't require those terms, nor do IJ's or Mactastic's or Patrick0brien's, to name a few...

tazo

Sep 18, 2003, 11:22 PM

I know that not everyone in these forums uses those terms, however it seems like whenever one's argument is lacking or some how flawed, we must resort to inserting a random political term....

Sayhey

Sep 19, 2003, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by shadowfax
you "clearly" have a very balanced view of things.

you should learn to have enough respect not to use subtle ad hominems. there's no such thing as an american regime. regime is not a term for elected administrations. there is no american regime. This is also not an illegal war. not by US law. and furthermore, this is not "clearly" an immoral war. it may be clear to you, but it isn't to me.

regime ... n. 1. A system of management of government; an administration. 2. A social system or pattern.

That is what it says in my dictionary. "Clearly" under that definition it applies to this administration. If the connotations of the word are loaded because Bush and others have used the word for those governmental structures they didn't like, it doesn't change the basic meaning of the word.

Second, this is an illegal war under our treaty obligations, including the UN Charter. The preemptive character of the war and the assult without the proper UN mandate makes it so.

Last, there were no ad hominem attacks in his post. He did not say that the Bush Administration was the same as Hitler or Mussolini, but only that he wished those armies soldiers had resisted an illegal war. It is still a principle of International law and of US military law that soldiers have a responsiblity to not carry out illegal orders. That, of course, is not an easy thing to do in this situation. Nor is it a course I would recommend, but I have no problem with soldiers speaking their minds about the problems of this war.

rainman::|:|

Sep 19, 2003, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by Sayhey
[B]this is an illegal war under our treaty obligations, including the UN Charter. The preemptive character of the war and the assult without the proper UN mandate makes it so.

You are quite correct. To elaborate, because people seem to be selectively "fuzzy" on the role and authority of the UN, the USA is a member of the Security Council, and one of the stipulations of joining the Security Council is that the member country abide by the Council's ruling. We became a member fully knowing this, with the understanding that it would prevent the USA from making a rash change in it's war policies, such as adding "preemptive striking". The idea was, when we joined (formed) the Council, that the other countries on the Council would be able to keep a single country in check. When a country defies their chartered role, what do you do to them? Since the President is the person who ordered the actions in violation of the Council's decision, I think precidence is clear that he should be tried for war crimes in an international court of law, the World Court, created by treaty under Clinton, for enhancing the ability to try soldiers and war criminals for crimes against humanity. However, Bush refused to be bound by this treaty, renouncing it because they knew it would make the USA more liable in the upcoming war. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1970312.stm)

For more information on the obligations of the USA as a member of the Security Council, see Chapter 5, Articles 23-25, United Nations Charter (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter5.htm).

Shadowfax, still going to claim this war was not illegal? Bush covered his own ass before going in, to some degree, but eliminating the World Court does not make our actions any less illegal. It just makes it more inconvient to prosecute Bush as a war criminal, when this is all settled. We went into this war under the pretense that Iraq was in violation of (i think) 12 UN Resolutions, a major infraction. However, by doing this, we ourselves committed a major infraction, showing our disregard for the UN's authority. How can we claim that we're fighting for the UN's authority, when we undermine it at the same time?

And why, I might ask, did Iraq get invaded for these infractions (since Bush now tells us there is no 9/11 link whatsoever (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/17/politics/17CND-BUSH.html) (1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/19/opinion/19FRI1.html))), when Israel is the country in violation of the most Resolutions on earth? (http://www.jewsagainsttheoccupation.org/UNresolutions.html) We don't invade them, we actually support them! Why don't we invade? Because Israel doesn't have the precious oil that Iraq provides (for less trouble), plus Israel is an important ally. And just the other day, the USA classified Syria and Libya as "rogue states", saying that we might take any actions necessary to eliminate their WMDs. (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wosyri173458149sep17,0,565801.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines) Why do we not blink when Israel builds their arsenal, and North Korea brazenly flaunts their developing nuclear capabilities... I don't know about you, but I don't want n. korea, OR israel, to have the Bomb. Altho I don't think the US should have it either...

Seems that damned UN that we created back in our more enlightened days really keeps coming back and biting the US in the ass, when the USA suddenly makes a sharp turn in foreign policy, even in the midst of global terrorism-- which, it would seem, is just the red herring in all of this.

pnw

Sayhey

Sep 19, 2003, 02:00 AM

I would only add this to paulwhannel's very useful information on the UN, so that no one try to say that the UN Charter does not apply to us and that we are only obligated to US law I would quote this:

Article VI of the U. S. Constitution

Supreme Law of the Land.

2. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

The bold print reflects my emphasis.

shadowfax

Sep 19, 2003, 02:59 AM

Originally posted by Sayhey
That is what it says in my dictionary. "Clearly" under that definition it applies to this administration. If the connotations of the word are loaded because Bush and others have used the word for those governmental structures they didn't like, it doesn't change the basic meaning of the word.
oh, "Bush and others," huh? I'm not defending the man, but to blame him for the negative connotation of the word is asinine. regime is, and has been for a long time, used almost exclusively within the realm of politics to denote an authoritarian or totalitarian rule. hell, in my 10 year old history book last year, they used it to refer to absolutist kingships in Europe. there is a specific reason that he used regime to refer to the bush administration rather than a more common term, like administration. what you are doing by appealing to "basic meaning" is asking me to ignore the context in which he used the word--in other words, to deny one of my most basic tools for understanding meaning in language.

grow up. if i say "I love you, man," do you immediately assume that i am referring to the dictionary definition of love, one of which is "the emotion of sex and romance" and become disgusted, or do you wittily reply, "you're not getting my bud light, johnny"? connotation defines words much further than your dictionary.

and again, suppose i have a gun. i go around shooting people with it. do you defend me by saying, well, the gun isn't intrinsically bad... ?
Last, there were no ad hominem attacks in his post. He did not say that the Bush Administration was the same as Hitler or Mussolini, but only that he wished those armies soldiers had resisted an illegal war. It is still a principle of International law and of US military law that soldiers have a responsiblity to not carry out illegal orders. That, of course, is not an easy thing to do in this situation. Nor is it a course I would recommend, but I have no problem with soldiers speaking their minds about the problems of this war. the ad hominem i had in mind, which was admittedly subtle, was the use of regime, which i believe he's done multiple times...

as you point out about the hitler/mussolini comparison, we are not talking about genocide here. we're talking about overthrowing an authoritarian government that committed many atrocities against indigenous peoples on racial basis. in that respect, our occupation of Iraq can be viewed in a different light. but whatever your stance on this, it must be admitted that the legality of this war is much more debatable and vague than the holocaust or the invasion of a peaceful country like Poland or Czechoslovakia.

as far as the UN charter, i strongly affirm our right to act without the support of an organization which actively abdicates its own power and responsibility. but i don't even want to get into that here.

soldiers are not EVER to question orders in the manner of this article. this is disrespectful and flies in the face of the right way to do this. if you do not want to engage in something you believe is illegal in the army, you can request transfer, leave the force, do any number of things to avoid participating in what you view as immoral actions. this is especially true in the absence of something like a draft. but to abandon the chain of command is to show yourself a fool and a coward, a disrespectful brat. this action merits a dishonorable discharge, in my opinion. soldiers are not just any other citizen of this country.

zimv20

Sep 19, 2003, 03:19 AM

Originally posted by shadowfax

it must be admitted that the legality of this war is much more debatable and vague than [...] the invasion of a peaceful country like Poland or Czechoslovakia.

<not defending hitler>
well, it _was_ land that germany had and wanted back...
</not defending hitler>

oh shoot -- now that i'm done not defending hitler, am i now defending him? fine mess i've gotten myself into...

Sayhey

Sep 19, 2003, 03:44 AM

Originally posted by shadowfax
oh, "Bush and others," huh? I'm not defending the man, but to blame him for the negative connotation of the word is asinine. regime is, and has been for a long time, used almost exclusively within the realm of politics to denote an authoritarian or totalitarian rule. hell, in my 10 year old history book last year, they used it to refer to absolutist kingships in Europe. there is a specific reason that he used regime to refer to the bush administration rather than a more common term, like administration. what you are doing by appealing to "basic meaning" is asking me to ignore the context in which he used the word--in other words, to deny one of my most basic tools for understanding meaning in language.

grow up. if i say "I love you, man," do you immediately assume that i am referring to the dictionary definition of love, one of which is "the emotion of sex and romance" and become disgusted, or do you wittily reply, "you're not getting my bud light, johnny"? connotation defines words much further than your dictionary.

and again, suppose i have a gun. i go around shooting people with it. do you defend me by saying, well, the gun isn't intrinsically bad... ?
the ad hominem i had in mind, which was admittedly subtle, was the use of regime, which i believe he's done multiple times...

as you point out about the hitler/mussolini comparison, we are not talking about genocide here. we're talking about overthrowing an authoritarian government that committed many atrocities against indigenous peoples on racial basis. in that respect, our occupation of Iraq can be viewed in a different light. but whatever your stance on this, it must be admitted that the legality of this war is much more debatable and vague than the holocaust or the invasion of a peaceful country like Poland or Czechoslovakia.

as far as the UN charter, i strongly affirm our right to act without the support of an organization which actively abdicates its own power and responsibility. but i don't even want to get into that here.

soldiers are not EVER to question orders in the manner of this article. this is disrespectful and flies in the face of the right way to do this. if you do not want to engage in something you believe is illegal in the army, you can request transfer, leave the force, do any number of things to avoid participating in what you view as immoral actions. this is especially true in the absence of something like a draft. but to abandon the chain of command is to show yourself a fool and a coward, a disrespectful brat. this action merits a dishonorable discharge, in my opinion. soldiers are not just any other citizen of this country.

OK, I'm not going to argue that the connotations of the word, regime, don't go back much farther than Bush. That was never the point I was trying to make. The use, now, of the word by Bush and its use by others in the past is intended to smear other governments with the taint of illegitimacy (sometimes with some validity). It is no mortal sin for opponents of Bush to use it to describe his administration. The posted use of the word fits in its meaning and if the flavor its usage brings to the debate is distasteful to you, then that objection is fine by me. However, that is not what you said in your original post. You jumped all over the guy on the basis of the use of a word that fit perfectly well. Give him a break.

As to the illegal nature of the war and the UN you say,

as far as the UN charter, i strongly affirm our right to act without the support of an organization which actively abdicates its own power and responsibility. but i don't even want to get into that here.

It is precisely our obligations under the UN charter and other treaties that are at the heart of the debate concerning the nature of the war. Because you don't like an international institution or a particular treaty doesn't give you the right to ignore the law when it becomes inconvenient. If we are to withdraw from our agreements we should do so and explain why. I think the idea that we are going to leave those committments because we want to decide when and were to abide by internationally recognized principles concerning the waging of war will not go over well in the rest of the world, and I would hope not here.

I would also argue that the very intrustive inspections by the UN were not an example of how it "abdicates its own power and responsibility." Quite the contrary.

To the question of a soldiers responsibilities. Yes, I agree that soldiers, in general (no pun intended), must follow orders. When you are confronted with an illegal action it becomes much more complicated. There are indeed times when soldiers must disobey orders. Not being in the difficult situation of the GI quoted in the start of the thread, I won't presume to tell him what to do.

Lastly, shadowfax, you are obviously an intelligent person and debater. I like reading what you have to say, but I would like to ask you to refrain from comments like your telling me to "grow up." I may be wrong, but I would guess I'm twice your age. Such phrases are ... well, you know what they are.

tazo

Sep 19, 2003, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by Sayhey

Lastly, shadowfax, you are obviously an intelligent person and debater. I like reading what you have to say, but I would like to ask you to refrain from comments like your telling me to "grow up." I may be wrong, but I would guess I'm twice your age. Such phrases are ... well, you know what they are.

in defense of shadow', it goes both ways; there is a bias against teens on the site...such as rower calling me son, all the time...

shadowfax

Sep 19, 2003, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Sayhey
OK, I'm not going to argue that the connotations of the word regime don't go back much farther than Bush. That was never the point I was trying to make. The use now of the word by Bush and others in the past is, indeed, to smear other governments with the taint of illegitimacy (sometimes with some validity). It is no mortal sin for opponents of Bush to use it to describe his administration. The word fits in its meaning and if the flavor its usage brings to the debate is distasteful to you, then that objection is fine by me. However, that is not what you said in your original post. You jumped all over the guy on the basis of the use of a word that fit perfectly well. Give him a break.
it's certainly not a mortal sin to call the administration a regime, but it reveals a vast amount of bias, and as we have discussed in this forum, controlling language is controlling the debate, and as such i often move to avoid letting someone choose a word that i don't want to use in terms of this debate. not to say that i don't make up my own controlling words, but it's all part of the game.Lastly, shadowfax, you are obviously an intelligent person and debater. I like reading what you have to say, but I would like to ask you to refrain from comments like your telling me to "grow up." I may be wrong, but I would guess I'm twice your age. Such phrases are ... well, you know what they are. yes, i know what they are... it was mostly tongue in cheek, though granted placed in a place where you're not likely to pick up on it, or rather, appreciate it (because of its place in my message to you). just part of the rhetoric of the debate... i can tone it down, sure ;)

about the place of the UN in relation to the world and the US, i'm aware that the US should not be breaking it's promises, and that's about the only thing that galls me about going to, but I view it as a lesser of two evils, between that and sitting around while the UN fails to take just, decisive actions. i'm confident that you disagree with me about the effectiveness of the UN, though, so this issue is really moot for us.

shadowfax

Sep 19, 2003, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by tazo
in defense of shadow', it goes both ways; there is a bias against teens on the site...such as rower calling me son, all the time... well, to some extent. rower just likes to patronize you. that's exactly the same thing that i am doing, it's just much more ironic because i am probably half of sayhey's age.

tazo

Sep 19, 2003, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by shadowfax
well, to some extent. rower just likes to patronize you. that's exactly the same thing that i am doing, it's just much more ironic because i am probably half of sayhey's age.

rower has had a disdain for me since the days of the stereotype thread.

Sayhey

Sep 19, 2003, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by shadowfax
well, to some extent. rower just likes to patronize you. that's exactly the same thing that i am doing, it's just much more ironic because i am probably half of sayhey's age.

Is my assumption wrong? I'm much closer to 50 than 40 and you are a student at OU. You could be a returning student, but my guess is that you're not.

shadowfax

Sep 19, 2003, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Sayhey
Is my assumption wrong? I'm much closer to 50 than 40 and you are a student at OU. You could be a returning student, but my guess is that you're not. no, you're right on. i'm 18, so you're somewhere on the order of 2.5 times my age.

shadowfax

Sep 19, 2003, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by tazo
rower has had a disdain for me since the days of the stereotype thread. well, lot's of people probably disdain you. i mean, come on, it's not like I have any respect for you ;)

he's still being playful with you. he could just out and out insult you or ignore you, but he patronizes you. it's just a game.

Rower_CPU

Sep 19, 2003, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by tazo
in defense of shadow', it goes both ways; there is a bias against teens on the site...such as rower calling me son, all the time...

That was one time, "Mr. :rolleyes:"

Any other OT comments will be deleted.

rainman::|:|

Sep 19, 2003, 01:33 PM

shadowfax, i'm embarassed for you that you cannot come to the table prepared to discuss the facts of an issue. If you can't offer anything better than "i don't want to get into it", don't argue when we call the war illegal. You obviously do not know enough about the subject to make an informed decision. Or else you're just a bad debater.

no offense, it's just extremely frustrating when someone disregards everything you've said, while clinging to the ideal at hand.

you call them "promises" when in reality they are legally binding treaties that are the foundation of all foreign relations. Are you suggesting that we be an isolationist nation because the rest of the world cannot tolerate our hypocrisy? Yet we should demand that they help do our dirty work?

pnw

Sayhey

Sep 19, 2003, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by shadowfax
it's certainly not a mortal sin to call the administration a regime, but it reveals a vast amount of bias, and as we have discussed in this forum, controlling language is controlling the debate, and as such i often move to avoid letting someone choose a word that i don't want to use in terms of this debate. not to say that i don't make up my own controlling words, but it's all part of the game. yes, i know what they are... it was mostly tongue in cheek, though granted placed in a place where you're not likely to pick up on it, or rather, appreciate it (because of its place in my message to you). just part of the rhetoric of the debate... i can tone it down, sure ;)

about the place of the UN in relation to the world and the US, i'm aware that the US should not be breaking it's promises, and that's about the only thing that galls me about going to, but I view it as a lesser of two evils, between that and sitting around while the UN fails to take just, decisive actions. i'm confident that you disagree with me about the effectiveness of the UN, though, so this issue is really moot for us.

You are right the use of the word "regime" in all likelihood shows a bias. It is a bias that I obviously share with my concerns about the authoritarian nature of the limitations on our civil liberties in such initiatives as the Patriot Act and the disregard of international law. I think that we cannot effectively defend ourselves from terrorism by such trampling of our rights and traditions.

The choice to remove Saddam through invasion was not one that had to be made outside the institutions of the UN. If there had been any substance to the Bush administration's claims of secret WMD programs or ties to al Qaeda, then proof of either would have been a powerful tool to move the Security Council to joint military action. We will never know for sure because it becomes more and more obvious that both assertions were at best exaggerations and at worst bald-faced lies used as excuses to launch the invasion.

If there was any real concern about Saddam's abuse of Iraqi human rights then diplomatic and material support to those Iraqis who wish to change the politics would have certainly been in order. I have said already in many other threads that the same folks who cry crocodile tears for the Iraqi people helped shape the policy of arming Saddam in the '80s. I do not believe they had some conversion like Paul on the road to Damascus. This is especially so when I read the geopolitical power-grabbing reasons Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others have been using for their bellicose calls for war in Iraq for over a decade.

The change of this administration to a policy of preemptive war and regime change is not a choice between evils. It is a fundamentally different view of the world from the one we have pursued at least since the end of the Second World War. That was a former policy that sought a world dominated by the rule of law not one that is ruled by the nations with the military power to recreate the world in an image of their own making. The creation of the UN is the embodiment of the former policy. I would argue for a return to that policy of support of international institutions and international law that was supported by Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, et al.

It you haven't already read the paper by General Clark on the importance of international cooperation in the fight against terrorism and the failure of the administration in that regard, I would highly recommend it.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0209.clark.html

shadowfax

Sep 19, 2003, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by paulwhannel
shadowfax, i'm embarassed for you that you cannot come to the table prepared to discuss the facts of an issue. If you can't offer anything better than "i don't want to get into it", don't argue when we call the war illegal. You obviously do not know enough about the subject to make an informed decision. Or else you're just a bad debater.

no offense, it's just extremely frustrating when someone disregards everything you've said, while clinging to the ideal at hand.

you call them "promises" when in reality they are legally binding treaties that are the foundation of all foreign relations. Are you suggesting that we be an isolationist nation because the rest of the world cannot tolerate our hypocrisy? Yet we should demand that they help do our dirty work?

pnw what "i don't want to get into" is a subject that we have talked about rather extensively in other threads; i am no expert on the topic, but i don't have to be to make a reasonable judgment about this. i'm not trying to shy away from the subject, i am expressing my disagreement as a valid example how it's debatable whether this war should be considered illegal. i'm not defending my disagreement thoroughly because that doesn't seem to be necessary for this thread.

as to disregarding what you say, it's a shame that when people disagree with you that you have to think that they are disregarding what you say. i know how you and many others feel about the UN, and i know why, and i disagree, not because i ignore your views, but because i have seen the UN in action too, and i have formed different conclusions.

i'm so sorry you're embarrassed for me, i'll be sure and consider every possible way my argumentation can be misconstrued next tiime i make them :rolleyes:

shadowfax

Sep 19, 2003, 03:15 PM

Sayhey:
I agree with you that the patriot act and other stuff that ashcroft and bush are putting forth is troubling to some extent, but comparing it to authoritarianism is an insult to people who live under real oppression everywhere, if you ask me. bush refers to regimes in countries like Iraq and North Korea not because he just randomly chose to hate them, but because they really are authoritarian governments that systematically suppress dissidents and commit genocide (NK is innocent on that last one of course). I don't think there is any reason to disagree with this. even if you just categorically despise bush, that doesn't make the things he hates somehow not as bad, right?

As to the removal of Saddam by the US without UN support, it's a terrible thing that it came to that. But to me, it's much more terrible that the nations of the world overlooked the evil and continuous violations of human rights perpetrated in that country, its abuse of sanctions if not outright failure to abide by them (to the exacerbation of the impoverishment of the people) and failed to support the US on the basis that their WMD argument didn't hold water. i don't care whether or not they have oil or atom bombs, or nerve gas. the regime in iraq had plenty of other things to be ousted for, and it makes the UN look like a sham in light of that they fail to uphold these. do you see what i am saying? i adhere to the ideal of the UN, but i don't think that the UN comes anywhere close to upholding this ideal. and this was largely, largely due to, for instance, france's economic interest in letting the iraq regime continue in spite of its oppressive nature.

as to your opposing actions because of the views of the people who would undertake them, rather than the merit of the actions themselves, i think that's very misguided. to say that "oh, we can't do something right because all we've ever done is wrong" is kinda dumb to me. the people that armed saddam in the 1980s made a mistake. maybe they should have known, and obviously rumsfeld and the like have not undergone any kind of epiphany of morality, but that still doesn't imply that their actions must axiomatically be considered wrong.

about "real concern" about human rights violations, that's the most troubling thing, that there is no real concern about it. it's appalling, the things that the UN as well as the US overlook and fail to take action against. but if something good can be got from a host of very bad motives (understand that both sides of this issue have extremely appalling motives, e.g. the french economic interests), to say that these bad motives negate or preclude action limits any international body from any action whatsoever, pretty much.

about the changes this administration has taken in policy, i agree with you that they are frustrating and scary. but i think that the ideals and world views upon which the UN was founded have increasingly devolved and disappeared, not because of the US, but as a general international trend. i think that the US policy is a response to this, and that as such it is a choice between two evils. i would much prefer to reform the UN myself, and think that that would have been the right thing to do, but increasingly i feel that this is not something that is possible in the near future.

the isolationism that Bush has turned to is invalid as a continuing policy, but i think the actions he has taken have and will accomplish better things in Iraq in the long run, provided they are matched with wise conduct in the future.

again, one of the things that really irks me about the anti-US arguments that i hear is that they take skecticism about WMDs and terrorist links and use them to imply that the Saddam regime was somehow this peaceful, wronged nation that was disinterested in the conflict between the world and the terrorists of teh middle east. it's this interpretation that i disagree with, paulwhannel, and for this reason in large part that i don't agree with your outrage over this controversy; i'm not disregarding what you say ;)

happy now?

Desertrat

Sep 19, 2003, 04:05 PM

I'm sure that paulwhannel always recalls his "you call them "promises" when in reality they are legally binding treaties that are the foundation of all foreign relations." in any discussion of our involvement in South Vietnam. I refer to the SEATO Treaty, of course.

Apologies for the intrusion.

:D, 'Rat

Sayhey

Sep 19, 2003, 04:14 PM

shadowfax,
I'm happier that I better understand your position. Never was that unhappy about this debate. One correction, I did not say we have an authoritarian regime in the US. I wrote concerning the "authoritarian nature" of the US Patriot Act. I recognize the difference between our system of government, even with these anti-democratic measures, and a place such as North Korea or Saddam's Iraq. It is to preserve those differences, meaning the maintainence of democracy here in the US, that I'm in large part motivated in politics.

I should probably say what I've said in other threads just so there is no misunderstanding my position. I think Saddam was, and is, a brutal butcher. In the 1980's when I was working on anti-apartheid work, I also worked with Iraqi dissidents who discribed him as a fascist. I supported them then in their effort to get rid of him and have no disagreement as to their characterization of him to this day. I'm happy that he is no longer in control of Iraq, if not with the way it was done.

I do not oppose the action in Iraq because of a hatred for Bush. I oppose it because it strikes at the foundation of international law. I oppose it because I see it as a move away from the principle of self determination that our country was founded on and towards an American Empire. The idea that the US has the right to determine alone who can or cannot govern sovereign nations is extremely dangerous. The power to do so does not accrue the right to do so.

I would rather our policy on the many authoritarian regimes throughout the world, be they friends such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, or foes such as Iran or North Korea, be guided by peaceful constant pressure and support for democratic transitions. I have confidence that given the right support that people can win their own form of democracy. The people of South Africa and Chile are wonderful examples of how that can happen. Are there extreme examples where the world must step in? I think so. Kosovo is an example of one such case where the world did just that. I acknowledge their are far too many cases where the world did not do its duty. Rwanda is an example that springs to mind. But even in these examples it is critical that we move as world community, not as unilateral enforcers of US dictates. Part of the effort to win democracy in the world must be the ability to conduct ourselves by those principles our democracy was founded on. Respect for the rule of law must be very close to the top of the list of those principles.

shadowfax

Sep 19, 2003, 04:16 PM

haven't read all your post yet, but right off, the "Happy now?" was more directed at pnw.

IJ Reilly

Sep 19, 2003, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by shadowfax
again, one of the things that really irks me about the anti-US arguments that i hear is that they take skecticism about WMDs and terrorist links and use them to imply that the Saddam regime was somehow this peaceful, wronged nation that was disinterested in the conflict between the world and the terrorists of teh middle east.

Who has made this argument? Nobody on these boards, that I can recall.

mactastic

Sep 19, 2003, 04:27 PM

Yeah, one of the things that really irks me is when people tell you that just because you didn't support the war, you supported Saddam Hussein.

Unlike Dubya's world, the real world is not in 1-bit color. It's at least 32-bit. Probably more.

Sayhey

Sep 19, 2003, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by shadowfax
haven't read all your post yet, but right off, the "Happy now?" was more directed at pnw.

My mistake, still I like the further explanation of your position.

shadowfax

Sep 19, 2003, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
shadowfax,
I'm happier that I better understand your position. Never was that unhappy about this debate. One correction, I did not say we have an authoritarian regime in the US. I wrote concerning the "authoritarian nature" of the US Patriot Act. I recognize the difference between our system of government, even with these anti-democratic measures, and a place such as North Korea or Saddam's Iraq. It is to preserve those differences that I'm in large part motivated in politics. I love your rhetoric in this paragraph, particularly the wording of the last 2 sentences. thanks for the clarification... i realize you were making the reference to authoritarianism inasmuch as that law does have the beginnings of a move in that direction.

it's definitely widely acknowledged that curtailing freedom in the interest of safety is an acceptable practice in times of crisis, such as a war on US soil, or something along those lines. the danger of this is the creation of false crisis to increase power, which we can certainly observe in the bush administration. to that extent, i see your point and agree, at least to an unspecified extent.

as to the rest of your post, well said. it's good to see your perspective. i definitely value the importance of international law and the need for peaceable solutions, but i think that it has to break down at some point in the face of indifference by the body of the international community. i don't know for sure that this was the case in the Iraq issue, but i believe that it was certainly flirting with the line.

Sayhey

Sep 19, 2003, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by shadowfax

... i definitely value the importance of international law and the need for peaceable solutions, but i think that it has to break down at some point in the face of indifference by the body of the international community. i don't know for sure that this was the case in the Iraq issue, but i believe that it was certainly flirting with the line.

One of the most disconcerting things about this invasion is how it has destroyed the unprecedented support the US had after 9/11. If we had chosen to make the campaign against terror a international cause we could have. Instead for reasons that border on an almost theological disdain for multi-lateralism we chose to advance an agenda in Iraq that alienated most of the world. I think, however, Clark's article I listed a link to previously says it a lot better than I could.

Taft

Sep 19, 2003, 05:02 PM

Sayhey

Sep 19, 2003, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by Taft
Just a note here....

I don't think Bush has ever used the word regime with a negative connotation. He always puts "evil" or "corrupt" etc. before it to indicate the evil regime.

Hence the phrase "regime change" that he kept floating during the Iraqi war build up. It wasn't that he had to eliminate any Iraq regime, but rather he had to replace the regime with another regime.

I think regime has carried a negative connotation simply because of its alternate definition reffering to a set of rules or a program that must be strictly followed. When you associate "strict" with "administration" people usually think of facism or whathaveyou.
On its own I don't believe regime to have a negative connotation.

Taft

I think the point was that you are not likely to hear Bush talk about the "Bush regime" anytime soon. It is a good old fashioned word that conjures up all kinds of connotations that can be used for that purpose or not.

shadowfax

Sep 19, 2003, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
One of the most disconcerting things about this invasion is how it has destroyed the unprecedented support the US had after 9/11. If we had chosen to make the campaign against terror a international cause we could have. Instead for reasons that border on an almost theological disdain for multi-lateralism we chose to advance an agenda in Iraq that alienated most of the world. I think, however, Clark's article I listed a link to previously says it a lot better than I could. i agree that bush did a rather poor job of fostering internationalism right after 9/11, but i certainly think there's a very logical cause for it. the international community has really been very hostile towards bush since his presidency began. i'm not sure if this derives from their contempt for our election fiasco or from the fact that a great number of influential countries in the international community are almost unilaterally liberal and have a predisposition against him as such, or what, but george bush certainly met with a great deal of hostility in the light of some very minor things, like the refusal to join the kyoto accords. in this breakdown of internationalism after 9/11, therefore, i have a lot of trouble shifting all the blame on the bush administration. i think that all sides have been unwilling to compromise over very grave issues, not just the bush administration. this affliction is also very apparent in domestic issues in the US.

IJ Reilly

Sep 19, 2003, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
One of the most disconcerting things about this invasion is how it has destroyed the unprecedented support the US had after 9/11. If we had chosen to make the campaign against terror a international cause we could have. Instead for reasons that border on an almost theological disdain for multi-lateralism we chose to advance an agenda in Iraq that alienated most of the world. I think, however, Clark's article I listed a link to previously says it a lot better than I could.

This is what makes Clark's candidacy interesting. Unlike just about everyone else in the race, he wasn't in the position of being politically obligated to green-light the invasion as an answer to the threat of terrorism. During the same time frame he was able to articulate a much more sophisticated argument for how the US can advance its interests in the world without have to fight both our enemies and our friends. The question now is whether he can put those ideas into a package that the American people will understand.

shadowfax

Sep 19, 2003, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
I think the point was that you are not likely to hear Bush talk about the "Bush regime" anytime soon. It is a good old fashioned word that conjures up all kinds of connotations that can be used for that purpose or not. hmmm...

i really like that he drew on the meaning of the word as a reason that it has a negative connotation--that idea of a very exacting, strict set of procedures, like a physical regimen. the word definitely bears with it as such an inconsistency with the leaderships of elected, comparatively weak (from a domestic control perspective) governments.

again, i've read a whole lot of educated writing about politics, and i have never heard that word regime used for benevolent, democratic governments.

but i agree with you about that point of "regime change." i don't think it implies that he would call a government erected in iraq that he is favorable towards a regime. that's really stretching the bounds of my logic.

Taft

Sep 19, 2003, 05:20 PM

rainman::|:|

Sep 19, 2003, 06:32 PM

shadowfax: legal and illegal are not subjective things, opinions do NOT matter. It's black and white, either we broke the rules or we didn't. We did. There were rules in place, we agreed to them, we agreed to be bound by them, and we hold other countries to be bound by them. Then we broke those rules. That makes it illegal. It doesn't matter if your opinion on those treaties and international laws is pro or con...

I smoke pot. In the USA it's against the law. I think that that law is unconstitutional and wrong, and should be repealed. However, I'm not brash enough to go around telling people that smoking pot is legal, because i disagree with the laws. It's clearly illegal.

Black and white. no shades of gray. opinion is irrelevant. that's how (and why) law works. If you want to argue that we were justified in our actions, or doing them for the right reasons, that's fine, that's your opinion. But to deny that it's illegal without justifying your position (i really don't give a damn if you posted it in other threads) would be like me saying (matter-of-factly, in a public forum) that Jews control the media, and then refusing to "get into it" if the people disagree. If you state an opinion in a discussion, especially so self-assuredly, you should always be prepared to back it up.

pnw

shadowfax

Sep 19, 2003, 06:46 PM

if actions are always black and white, legal or illegal, then what's a loophole?

how can there be dispute on whether something is unconstitutional if it's all black and white?

that's how (and why) law works. or rather, why law doesn't always work.

IJ Reilly

Sep 19, 2003, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by Taft
I also assign blame on the pre-9/11 Bush administration.

How many times did you hear about international politics, presidential visits to other nations, negotiations with Palestinians and Isreal, etc from the pre-9/11 administration? Not many.

Bush largely ignored th rest of the world in the beginning of his term. He actually received a lot of criticism from the media about this. Only afterwords did the shift focus to international relations or, as Bush likes to put it, the "war on terror."

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: for as much crap as Clinton takes for being "soft on terror," I think a reasonable argument can be made that Bush actually neglected terrorism and international policy far more pre-9/11 than Clinton ever did in his tenure.

Taft

Last night on the NewsHour (am I the only person around here who watches this program?), Madeleine Albright responded to questions about this:

JIM LEHRER: On some of the policy issues, are you satisfied that you and the Clinton administration did everything you could about Osama bin Laden and possible terrorism from al-Qaida while were you in office?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Absolutely. It's obviously something that we have all reviewed in our heads, but I think that we made very clear the danger of terrorism. President Clinton spoke about it early and often and developed a whole set of policies which made it possible to look at the financial trail of the terrorists to try to establish and give a greater budget to the CIA and FBI created an Osama bin Laden part of the CIA. We also foiled a lot of attempts -- the dogs that didn't bark. I think the most famous is over the millennium at Los Angeles Airport. I do think... and the other part that I think people forget. Before 9/11, things were quite different. When we reacted to the bombing of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and launched 75 Cruise missiles against Osama bin Laden's camps and came very close to getting him and attacked a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, people thought we had overreacted. It was the opposite. I think we did everything we could.

JIM LEHRER: But now the suggestion is you under reacted as you know.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: I think that we actually did the right thing. We consumed all the intelligence we had. We hit at Osama bin Laden when we thought we could find him and now there are 8,000 U.S. Forces in Afghanistan. They have been... after they bombed everything, they've been there more than two years and they haven't found Osama bin Laden. So I think it's a very hard job and I think we did everything we could.

Desertrat

Sep 19, 2003, 08:42 PM

Lord luv a pregnant duck!

"When we reacted to the bombing of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and launched 75 Cruise missiles against Osama bin Laden's camps and came very close to getting him and attacked a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, people thought we had overreacted. It was the opposite."

Close to getting him? Yeah, right. The only problem was that nobody was home...

Pharmaceutical plant? Yeah, wiped out the aspirin supply for the continent...

"Overreacted"? How about "mis-aimed reaction"? There was as much raucous laughter at the Clintonian claims in all that fiasco as at Bush for WMD in Iraq.

Talk about a re-write of history!!!

'Rat

Ugg

Sep 19, 2003, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by Desertrat
Close to getting him? Yeah, right. The only problem was that nobody was home...

Pharmaceutical plant? Yeah, wiped out the aspirin supply for the continent...

"Overreacted"? How about "mis-aimed reaction"? There was as much raucous laughter at the Clintonian claims in all that fiasco as at Bush for WMD in Iraq.

Talk about a re-write of history!!!

'Rat

Points once again to the fact that the US despite billions and billions of dollars in intelligence equipment and capabilities is unable to make them work. Isn't that the real problem here? An intelligence system that doesn't work.

Madeline takes credit for catching the guy who took the ferry from BC to Washington state and was on his way to bomb LAX but the fact was, it was a routine stop based on suspicious behaviour.

Our vaunted "intelligence" has failed us miserably again and again and again. When will we begin to hold them accountable for their expenditures and their failures, or have they become untouchable?

Sayhey

Sep 19, 2003, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by shadowfax
i agree that bush did a rather poor job of fostering internationalism right after 9/11, but i certainly think there's a very logical cause for it. the international community has really been very hostile towards bush since his presidency began. i'm not sure if this derives from their contempt for our election fiasco or from the fact that a great number of influential countries in the international community are almost unilaterally liberal and have a predisposition against him as such, or what, but george bush certainly met with a great deal of hostility in the light of some very minor things, like the refusal to join the kyoto accords. in this breakdown of internationalism after 9/11, therefore, i have a lot of trouble shifting all the blame on the bush administration. i think that all sides have been unwilling to compromise over very grave issues, not just the bush administration. this affliction is also very apparent in domestic issues in the US.

shadowfax,

we could certainly debate the French or German or Russian or Chinese position on different international issues, but the fact remains that after the 9/11 attacks, as Clark points out, the nations of NATO went so far as to declare for the first time that Article V was in effect, that the attack on the US was an attack on all NATO nations and therefore all members of the alliance were bound to militarily support the US. That kind of support is an incredibly stupid thing to waste. Unfortunately, there were other agendas at work in the White House and using the 9/11 attacks to justify the overthrow of Saddam was at the top of that agenda.

I don't think the rejection of Kyoto or actions like the abrogation of the ABM treaty were minor. Those type of actions set a tone in international relations of non-cooperation at best, or at worst, open hostility to the concerns of other nations. I asked in another thread, half jokingly, if anyone could name a international agreement this adminstration was for. I can't come up with one. That is because, for neoconservatives, multilateralism means other nations doing what we decide.

As I said before, this administrations foreign policy is a rejection of the approach of the last almost sixty years. That includes all the Republican as well as Democratic administrations since WWII. That became its approach since Powell was marginalized and the advice of folks like Baker and Scowcroft was ignored. For some very good information on this I would recommend Frontline's documentary entitled "The War Behind Closed Doors" at:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/

IJ, I watch the "Newshour" but I missed that show. Thanks for the post.

Desertrat

Sep 19, 2003, 10:06 PM

Ugg, there are two off-and-on problems with our intelligence gathering. The first is the idea that we can substitute high-tech "elint" for low-tech "humint". Cameras in space instead of people on the ground.

The next problem is putting morals into the gathering of human intelligence. When the only folks "on the inside" are Bad Guys At Heart, what's the alternative? When the law or policy says they can't be used, aren't we rather handi-capped? The CIA, et al, still have a shortage of agents who are fluent in Arabic. It gets worse when you consider the variations in accent. Just because someone is fluent doesn't mean he sounds like an Iraqi or a Libyan or an Egyptian. They have variations in accent, just as we have Noo Joisey and Jawgia.

And after the Berlin Wall came down and then the USSR broke apart, a lot of the intel budget became part of the "Peace Dividend" and got spent on social programs.

We've been doing this sort of thing to ourselves as long as I can remember. Short-term memory problems, at election time. It's all well and good to rip any given Administration, but all spending begins in the House Appropriations Committee.

'Rat

zimv20

Sep 20, 2003, 01:16 AM

after 9.11, the entire world was ready to give bush a second chance. including me. but he burned up all that political capital faster than the surplus disappeared.

doing so was nothing less than colossal incompetence. of the highest order. a pudding spoon would have gotten better use of all that goodwill.

and if it's not apparent, i'm angry at bush for ****ing it all up.

pseudobrit

Sep 20, 2003, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by Desertrat
The next problem is putting morals into the gathering of human intelligence. When the only folks "on the inside" are Bad Guys At Heart, what's the alternative? When the law or policy says they can't be used, aren't we rather handi-capped? The CIA, et al, still have a shortage of agents who are fluent in Arabic. It gets worse when you consider the variations in accent. Just because someone is fluent doesn't mean he sounds like an Iraqi or a Libyan or an Egyptian.

So the problem is that the CIA can't get Arabic speaking agents because they're all "Bad Guys at Heart?"

Desertrat

Sep 20, 2003, 10:22 AM

Aw, c'mon. Burn that straw man. What I've read, the upper echelons of the CIA instituted a policy which prohibited field agents from using anyone with a criminal or terrorist record. They couldn't use a turncoat from Hamas, for instance. (Not all members of a group like Hamas or Islamic Jihad are ready to die for the cause. Not all of them like seeing body parts intermingled with car bodies and tree limbs. The first killing is the hardest, and some folks can only deal with doing it once; they don't want to repeat the deed.) But, if you can't make use of such people, you're cut off from a lot of hints and information. Most other intelligence services don't handicap themsleves in that fashion.

As some folks figured out during the Cold War, getting inside information from within a closed society is quite difficult. That's part of the "why" of the reliance on electronic information. Too many in groups like Congress don't like the idea of dirty hands, and the money is available for elint instead of bribing people (with the attendant risks to agents of meeting, persuading and suviving the meetings.)

An institutional problem, IMO, that's maybe more prevalent in the western world, is the failure to understand the psychology and history of some hostile group. Knowing why people behave as they do or how they are likely to react to some stimulus is far more important than most of our leadership (past as well as present) has seemed to realize. Even with friends, some goals are mutually exclusive...

'Rat

mactastic

Sep 20, 2003, 10:31 AM

Well there was a problem with the CIA using dirty people to do dirty work. You have to be really careful how you handle/deal with those types, lest your become one of them.

On a whole though, the pendulum was swung to far to the restraint side for the CIA, but lets not let it swing all the way back to where it was.

Seperatly, Arabic speakers are not difficult to come by, but when you neglect that aspect of your languages program, you sure can't ramp it up in a hurry. Arabic is tougher to learn than Russian from what I hear. And even as recently as 5 years ago the Defense Department was more interested in training Russian speakers than Arabic. My ex gf's sister joined up with the Navy back then, got into intel, and was sent to the DLI. To be trained to speak Russian. At the time, she even said it seemed silly to have most of the people learning Russian, since the cold war was long over, and there were so many other threats out there.

Taft

Sep 20, 2003, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by Desertrat
Lord luv a pregnant duck!

"When we reacted to the bombing of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and launched 75 Cruise missiles against Osama bin Laden's camps and came very close to getting him and attacked a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, people thought we had overreacted. It was the opposite."

Close to getting him? Yeah, right. The only problem was that nobody was home...

Pharmaceutical plant? Yeah, wiped out the aspirin supply for the continent...

Well, Clinton may not have got bin Laden, but he was trying. Intelligence failures happen. Often. It is a problem.

But you can't deny an effort wasn't being made.

BTW, was it aspirin? ... Whats that? ... A drug? And who makes drugs? ... Right! Pharaceutical companies. I knew you could do it! :rolleyes:

"Overreacted"? How about "mis-aimed reaction"? There was as much raucous laughter at the Clintonian claims in all that fiasco as at Bush for WMD in Iraq.

Talk about a re-write of history!!!

'Rat

By "mis-aimed" I guess you are referring to the theory that Clinton launched the missiles to divert attention from the Monica debacle. Correct?

So I guess that there was no intelligence saying bin Laden was there. And Clinton wasn't really trying to kill a terrorist, he was just firing a random missiles into a camp somewhere vaguely terrorist related. Clinton was just making the whole thing up and using it as a convenient excuse.

This is why in partisan politics, you simply can't win. These are the types of actions (including Clinton's push for tougher "terrorist prevention laws which people viewed as infringing on civil rights) which showed the more conservative side of Clinton. The Clinton that is willing to give up freedoms to fight terrorism. Even many liberals were pissed at these displays and efforts. Yet conservatives still tried to lambast him.

They had their minds made up already.

Taft

rainman::|:|

Sep 20, 2003, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by shadowfax
if actions are always black and white, legal or illegal, then what's a loophole?

how can there be dispute on whether something is unconstitutional if it's all black and white?

that's how (and why) law works. or rather, why law doesn't always work.

loop·hole n.
A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.

A loophole means that whoever wrote the law or contract in question didn't do a thorough job, leaving gaps. Loopholes actually reinforce the black-and-white scenario, if the law wasn't so black and white, judges would not allow people to use loopholes, as they would be a gray area. Loopholes show that laws and contracts are NOT subjective, rather they are EXACTLY as written.

Deciding whether or not something is constitutional is difficult because we're looking at archaic wording from 200 years ago, in such a case there's reasonable interpretation. We still have to be bound by the constitution, we sometimes just have difficulty deciding exactly what parts of it mean.

Fortunately, when we're talking about international treaties and charters written within the last 60 years, we don't have these problems. There's no loophole or interpretation, in this case, that makes our actions any less illegal.

pnw

Desertrat

Sep 20, 2003, 09:41 PM

Taft, during the months following the bombing of the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, various European news sources reported an absence of Bad Deeds at that plant. I don't recall the corporate names involved out of whatever European country was directly involved, but they were all adamant that it was a legitimate enterprise...Damfino. Regardless, that was a part of the beginning of looking at this country as run by a bunch of cowboys, and calling the effort a serious attack on terrorism is indeed a rewrite of history.

As for bin Laden and the Afghani training camp, it was a place that people entered and left with some frequency. Apparently the shoot was well after the Bad Guys had left. Here again, the problems inherent with Elint and "real-time". That is, the cameras showed somebody was there, but by the time the info got where it was needed, it wasn't news; it was history. Reports then came out in the media that "We thought bin Laden was there." and "He had used that camp..."

Was it Sudan or Chad which had offered bin Laden from their custody to the US? And we turned them down? 1994 or 1995, after WTC I? I haven't been following this spilled-milk deal, although it's been kicking around for several years...

'Rat

Sayhey

Sep 20, 2003, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by paulwhannel
loop·hole n.
A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.

A loophole means that whoever wrote the law or contract in question didn't do a thorough job, leaving gaps. Loopholes actually reinforce the black-and-white scenario, if the law wasn't so black and white, judges would not allow people to use loopholes, as they would be a gray area. Loopholes show that laws and contracts are NOT subjective, rather they are EXACTLY as written.

Deciding whether or not something is constitutional is difficult because we're looking at archaic wording from 200 years ago, in such a case there's reasonable interpretation. We still have to be bound by the constitution, we sometimes just have difficulty deciding exactly what parts of it mean.

Fortunately, when we're talking about international treaties and charters written within the last 60 years, we don't have these problems. There's no loophole or interpretation, in this case, that makes our actions any less illegal.

pnw

The loophole for Bush was his use of the imminent danger to this country of weapons of mass destruction from Iraq. Every country has a right, spelled out in the UN Charter, to self-defense. Unfortunately (or fortunately - depending on how you look at it), those WMDs seem to have been a creation of the spin machine in the White House.

Bush's folks also try to use the original UN resolution authorizing the use of force in his daddy's day as the legal basis for his action. That doesn't hold up very well with almost everyone else.

The more in becomes clear that the Bush administration knew that there was no imminent threat it also becomes clear that they knew that they had no real legal basis to launch the invasion. They only wanted a figleaf to hide their violation of international law.

wwworry

Sep 21, 2003, 12:27 AM

Originally posted by Desertrat
Was it Sudan or Chad which had offered bin Laden from their custody to the US? And we turned them down? 1994 or 1995, after WTC I? I haven't been following this spilled-milk deal, although it's been kicking around for several years...

'Rat

This is a common lie oft repeated. What happened was Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American and middle-man to Sudanese oil interests asked the Clinton administration to lift sanctions against Sudan in exchange for Sudan handing over bin Laden. When they met with Ijaz it was clear that he really had no substantial contacts in the Sudanese government. The Clinton administration contacted the Sudanese government directly and they did not have bin Laden nor could they have helped. This Ijaz character just wanted sanctions lifted so he could make a buck.

What is factual is that the Bush administration repeatedly ignored the anti-terrorist plans put forth by the Clinton administration and hold-over Richard Clark. These plans included ground troops in Afghanistan, contact with the northern alliance, more intelligence sharing between agencies and Clinton's call for the asassination of bin Laden. According to Time magazine, "the Bush team thought the Clintonites had become obsessed with terrorism".

Other Facts: On Feb 15th, 2001 a Gary Hary and Warren Rudman lead commision called for the creation of a new federal agency "A National Homeland security agency with responsibility for planning, coordinating, and integrating various government agencies involved in homeland security." IGNORED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

ON July 10th, 2001 FBI agent Ken WIlliams warned that Al Qaeda operatives might be infiltrating the US aviation system

In mid July 2001 George Tenet (director of the CIA and hold-over from the Clinton administration briefed Condolizza Rice that "there was going to be a major attack"

On August 6th, 2001 Tenet delivered a report to George Bush entitled "Bin Laden Determined to strike at US". In it there were warnings that Al Qaeda might try to hijack airplanes.

That summer FBI director Thomas Pickard asked Ashcroft for an increase of $58 million dollars to hire more agents to improve the FBIs capacity to fight foreign terror threats. ON Sept. 10th 2001 ASHCROFT TURNED DOWN FUNDING REQUEST.

On Sept.9th 2001 congress proposed $600 million for anti-terror programs. Donald Rumsfeld threatened a presidential veto.

Bush was warned and did nothing. He was on vacation for much of the summer and for almost all of August 2001. Now everyone blames Clinton. Get your facts straight.

mactastic

Sep 21, 2003, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by Desertrat
...calling the effort a serious attack on terrorism is indeed a rewrite of history.

The war in Iraq was not a serious attack on terrorism. It was a detour from the real battle.

Sayhey

Sep 21, 2003, 01:12 AM

Looking back, I think we can all say that the Clinton administration, though trying, did not do enough to eliminate al Qaeda. In the time before the attacks of 9/11 the Bush administration did much less. Now with the move into Iraq, I agree with mactastic that we have dropped our focus on terrorism and let al Qaeda grow.

One thing I have to ask about the Clinton adminstrations efforts is how much do you think their attempts to get bin Laden was hampered by the lack of support and hostility to any action by a Republican Congress? In the war in Kosovo, the Republicans even refused to pass a resolution supporting the troops!

zimv20

Sep 21, 2003, 03:39 AM

Originally posted by Sayhey

One thing I have to ask about the Clinton adminstrations efforts is how much do you think their attempts to get bin Laden was hampered by the lack of support and hostility to any action by a Republican Congress?

the hart-rudman (sp?) act didn't get very far.

and:

"The Clinton administration's paranoid and prurient interest in (monitoring) international e-mail is a wholly unhealthy precedent especially given this administration's track record on FBI files and IRS snooping. Every medium by which people communicate can be subject to exploitation by those with illegal or immoral intentions. Nevertheless, this is no reason to hand Big Brother the keys to unlock our e-mail diaries, open our ATM records or translate our international communications."
-- JOHN ASHCROFT, as a U.S. senator, opposing the Clinton administration's request for broadened authority to eavesdrop on high-tech communications. From his Aug. 12, 1997 op-ed piece in the Washington Times, "Welcoming Big Brother."

mactastic

Sep 21, 2003, 09:47 AM

Wow.. Ashcroft actually said that? What a 180 he's made in the last 5 years. I guess it was just politics, not principles.

Taft

Sep 21, 2003, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by zimv20
the hart-rudman (sp?) act didn't get very far.

and:

That quote is astonishing. Ashcroft, the man behind the Patriot Act, saying that he cares about American's personal privacy.

I'll remember this thread. This is a great quote to have around and shows just how ridiculous the Republican congress was being during the Clinton administration. Many gave up all of their principles in order to oppose Clinton and his measures. Actually reminds me of a more recent congress we all know....

Taft

Taft

Sep 21, 2003, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by Desertrat
Taft, during the months following the bombing of the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, various European news sources reported an absence of Bad Deeds at that plant. I don't recall the corporate names involved out of whatever European country was directly involved, but they were all adamant that it was a legitimate enterprise...Damfino. Regardless, that was a part of the beginning of looking at this country as run by a bunch of cowboys, and calling the effort a serious attack on terrorism is indeed a rewrite of history.

Again, I implore you, why wasn't it a "serious" attack on terror? Only if Clinton and the intelligence agencies knew the plant was a legitimate business would it have been less than serious. Intelligence screwed up. It happens. Too often, and often with bad consequences, but it happens.

I'm sure intelligence never screws up under Bush, though. Every target in Iraq is hit, every house that is bombed is a real target, right? :rolleyes:

As for bin Laden and the Afghani training camp, it was a place that people entered and left with some frequency. Apparently the shoot was well after the Bad Guys had left. Here again, the problems inherent with Elint and "real-time". That is, the cameras showed somebody was there, but by the time the info got where it was needed, it wasn't news; it was history. Reports then came out in the media that "We thought bin Laden was there." and "He had used that camp..."

Again, how does this qualify as a less than serious attempt at fighting terrorism?

They had intelligence stating that the bad guys were there. They acted on it. They missed. So what? Does that make Clinton "soft on terror?"

Was it Sudan or Chad which had offered bin Laden from their custody to the US? And we turned them down? 1994 or 1995, after WTC I? I haven't been following this spilled-milk deal, although it's been kicking around for several years...

'Rat

This is crap. It has been debunked by me previously, here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=485920#post485920) among other places, and on this thread.

The only place these theories are kicking around is in conservative circles out to finish the job of demonizing Clinton. This assertion has no merit, and no evidence behind it.

You can call Clinton incompetent or brash in his execution, but he was NOT soft on terror. That is a rewrite of history.

Taft

Taft

Sep 21, 2003, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Taft
... It has been debunked by me previously, here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=485920#post485920)
...

BTW, I just wanted to ask that you read all of the information I provided in this link. It has a lot of information debunking claims of Clinton being soft on terror.

I'm sick of this claim. Provide REAL evidence that Clinton was acting in bad faith (or not at all) or shut up about it.

Taft

Desertrat

Sep 21, 2003, 12:16 PM

wwworry: Thanx. I was wondering how much was fact; how much was fiction.

Dunno if I wsn't paying as much attention, pre-Reagan, but the behavior of the Dems and Pubes really got heavy into hostility in the 1980s. Control of the Congress and the White House has become far more important insofar as power for its own sake than for "the good of the nation". IMO.

There has always been this ongoing battle, but today's virulence is becoming outlandish. (Has become?)

The Democrats say, "The Republicans want your babies to starve!", while the Republicans say, "The Democrats would turn loose all the murderers!"

Duh?

And the electorate stays home more and more on election day and folks wonder why...

'Rat

IJ Reilly

Sep 21, 2003, 01:37 PM

I think everybody missed what I thought was Albright's most interesting and telling remark in this interview: "We consumed all the intelligence we had."

I take this as diplomat-speak for, "the Bush administration consumed all the intelligence they had, plus some they didn't have."

zimv20

Sep 21, 2003, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I think everybody missed what I thought was Albright's most interesting and telling remark in this interview: "We consumed all the intelligence we had."

I take this as diplomat-speak for, "the Bush administration consumed all the intelligence they had, plus some they didn't have."

or: they consumed all the intelligence that fit their pre-determined political course.

IJ Reilly

Sep 21, 2003, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by zimv20
[;: they consumed all the intelligence that fit their pre-determined political course. [/B]

FWIW, I don't believe that was Albright's point. I think she was saying that the Clinton administration acted on the intelligence they had in hand, no more or less. The implication is that the Bush administration extrapolated beyond what they actually knew.

Desertrat

Sep 21, 2003, 07:26 PM

The inferences or implications of what I said are more to "inefficient" than "soft".

One article I've read commented that a mistake was made in treating terrorist's actions as criminal offenses with investigation by the FBI and indictments returned by federal grand juries. Grand jury info is sealed, and unavailable to those outside that court.

With it being treated as a "War", different laws and rules apply as to the dissemination of information among intelligence agencies.

One improvement that's come about is the effort to interrupt or end the money flow between and among the terror groups and their supporters (whether those giving financial assistance do or do not know the end recipients). There seems to be a lot of international cooperation, there.

While it might be due to the idea that the 9/11 attack could happen elsewhere, or that we've bribed other countries, somehow, one thing is certain and that is the international cooperation now occurring with foreign police and intelligence agencies. Possibly such cooperative efforts couldn't have been achieved during the Clinton era; I don't know.

There's a heckuva lot going on besides the efforts in Iraq...

'Rat

wwworry

Sep 22, 2003, 04:06 AM

Originally posted by Desertrat
Possibly such cooperative efforts couldn't have been achieved during the Clinton era; I don't know.

I think what you mean is that it couldn't have happened before 9/11. Bush was president on 9/11 and the kind of cooperation you are talking about was not happening then. Bush was either not concerned enough or not knowledgable enough to have pushed for such cooperation at that time.

Of course, after 9/11 any idiot could see the need to take action against terrorist financing. Even the most partisan loser would get the full support of the American people in trying to disrupt terrorist organizations. I think that's what you mean.

Ugg

Sep 22, 2003, 04:18 AM

Originally posted by Desertrat
While it might be due to the idea that the 9/11 attack could happen elsewhere, or that we've bribed other countries, somehow, one thing is certain and that is the international cooperation now occurring with foreign police and intelligence agencies. Possibly such cooperative efforts couldn't have been achieved during the Clinton era; I don't know.

There's a heckuva lot going on besides the efforts in Iraq...

'Rat

I'm not so sure that it could have happened. The world has become increasingly wary of US intentions over the last few decades and Dems or Reps, in the end they're all Americans. gw pushed through a lot of cooperation, some of it heavy handed some of it out of sympathy for 9-11, it remains to be seen how much of it will last for any length of time. There's a big stink going on now in the EU due to the airlines being forced to hand over personal info about passengers. This policy is in direct conflict with EU privacy laws and could cause a significant brouhaha. The same with the new $100 transit visa and I really wonder how much foreign banks will cooperate with the US if it exposes innocent people with no recourse to justice.

All speculation of course but gw isn't winning any prizes outside the US borders for his heavy handedness.

Desertrat

Sep 22, 2003, 05:04 PM

What I'm finding most frustrating about just about everything that's gone on since 9/11 is that I'm in support of the main thrust of the effort, but with emotions varying from dislike to outrage over the methodology.

"His heart's in the right place, but his head resides in fundamental darkness."

Little play on words, there...:D

'Rat

zimv20

Sep 22, 2003, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by Desertrat
What I'm finding most frustrating about just about everything that's gone on since 9/11 is that I'm in support of the main thrust of the effort, but with emotions varying from dislike to outrage over the methodology.

or as i've been saying since the war began: "the ends don't justify the means"

mactastic

Sep 22, 2003, 06:54 PM

Or "The right thing done for all the wrong reasons."

Judo

Sep 22, 2003, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by shadowfax

soldiers are not EVER to question orders in the manner of this article. this is disrespectful and flies in the face of the right way to do this. if you do not want to engage in something you believe is illegal in the army, you can request transfer, leave the force, do any number of things to avoid participating in what you view as immoral actions. this is especially true in the absence of something like a draft. but to abandon the chain of command is to show yourself a fool and a coward, a disrespectful brat. this action merits a dishonorable discharge, in my opinion. soldiers are not just any other citizen of this country. [/B]

Sorry to jump in like this but how is a soldier speaking his mind a coward?

Desertrat

Sep 22, 2003, 10:22 PM

Not trying to define somebody else's meaning, but I can see where someone would have a low opinion of one who doesn't face those with whom they disagree.

It's not easy to face those senior in a chain of command and state a belief in the illegality of some order. That certainly takes more courage than whining to a newsie over a few beers--in the mistaken belief that anonymity will be maintained...

'Rat

shadowfax

Sep 22, 2003, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by Judo
Sorry to jump in like this but how is a soldier speaking his mind a coward? there's a difference between speaking your mind and having an article published about how you disagree with the military policy of the nation as someone charged and under oath to carry it out. think about it for a short time: MacArthur was fired from his position in Korea for doing this. he may have even been discharged.

zimv20

Sep 22, 2003, 10:43 PM

governmental abuse of power is limited solely by a free press. should a soldier "whine" to the press, i don't think that should be sneered upon, but investigated to see if something is indeed amiss. part of the purpose of a soldier speaking up, of course, is to make sure the public knows what's going on.

and for every soldier who says something, i wonder how many keep silent?

a few thomas jefferson quotes:

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.

Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.

shadowfax

Sep 22, 2003, 11:02 PM

jesus! yes! let's democratize the military. platoons should vote before taking action.

af a soldier has to choose between his ballot and his gun, it betta not even be a choice!

c'mon, people, this is the army, not city hall. they're working to preserve democracy, not practice it. the chain of command mandates that you are not to publically question orders. if you have a problem, you take it to your CO, in private, in the army. you don't ****ing put it on CNN. this is a no-brainer.

Inu

Sep 23, 2003, 06:55 AM

Originally posted by shadowfax
jesus! yes! let's democratize the military. platoons should vote before taking action.

af a soldier has to choose between his ballot and his gun, it betta not even be a choice!

c'mon, people, this is the army, not city hall. they're working to preserve democracy, not practice it. the chain of command mandates that you are not to publically question orders. if you have a problem, you take it to your CO, in private, in the army. you don't ****ing put it on CNN. this is a no-brainer.

Platoons shouldnt vote before taking action. Thats a stupid argument.

I would prefer soldiers that choose their ballots btw. Cant have several thousand soldiers going off to vote with their guns. Thats a junta. (Same kind of stupid argument you choosed to the voting battle platoons btw)

Its the army, alright. But Soldiers are not 24/7 in Combat Situation (or you have already lost the war), so they have time off, time to think and argue. If they arent allowed to vocalize your problems, you feel bad about something very quickly. Apparently that has already happened. I dont think that soldier "whined" to CNN first. Maybe he used the chain of command and the field priest before. But the priest can't talk to others about it, and even the chain of command is as strong as its weakest link. First Officer that doesnt give a **** (Read: is a Bushist) about doubts does ruin the thing.