News and Open Thread

RGWOT, haha (4.00 / 1)

  Since I served in Iraq, I guess I don't qualify for the 'RGWOT ribbon'. But they gave us the GWOT twins anyway. I've always wondered why.

 I am utterly convinced that our presence in Iraq did nothing to either combat AQ or, more importantly, defend the Constitution of the United States, as our enlistment/commissioning oath commands us to do.

 When I first came home in early 2005, folks would always say things like, "Thanks for defending the country." Well-intended statements, to be sure, and I appreciated it, but I've never felt that I actually did anything to truly defend the nation, secure the rights of American citizens or promote peace.

 In short, America's policies since 9/11, particularly in Iraq, have done the exact opposite. We're actually worse off because of the invasion, and there is no end in sight.

 Anyway, as far as the Marine deployment to Afghanistan, there is no discussion in any of the stories I've seen so far dealing with the fact that we're sending the amphibious forces to fight in a land-locked country.

 Why aren't we sending the Army? OH, WAIT, the Army's tapped out after the Iraq 'surge.' Sorry, forgot about that.

 And as far as today's mini shock-and-awe campaign, I couldn't help but wonder: If this area has been such a bad place for so darn long, why in hell didn't the US take care of business there DURING the surge?

 I'm completely confused on this, and perhaps Brandon's assessment is accurate: some commander is sending the wrong message at the wrong time. As usual, the insurgents in this case read that message 'Lima Charlie.'

 Expect reprisals/escalation.

---

by: IrritatedVet @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:06:05 AM CST

Not clicking on that aistrike linky (0.00 / 0)

Read a couple of paragraphs earlier today, closed my eyes, saw pulverized "safe houses" with COLLATERAL DAMAGE written all over them.  Felt sick.  Stopped reading.

---

by: boadicaea @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 03:05:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The amphibious force is now short one LCDR-- (4.00 / 1)

my son got home this week and is getting acquainted with 7-week-old Ethan.  They'll be here for a couple of days next week so don't look for Grandma Boadicaea to be posting much for those 48 hours.

After that--do we know where the Marines are coming from?  Not east coast US, right?  His LHD could do the hauling if so, and I don't want to know ahead of time.

I think they'd take them to Bangladesh--made a lot of friends there earlier delivering water in the holds.  

---

by: boadicaea @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 03:24:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Please tell your son... (4.00 / 1)

  Welcome Home. And make sure he and Ethan have a good time.

 I've no idea where Pentagon will get the Marines for this deployment - and I wonder if the Pentagon has any idea either. I used to live 40 miles from Camp Lejeune, but I'm not tuned into it as much as I was several years ago.

 Take your time in posting. The LCDR and the Grandson are more important right now.

 IV

---

by: IrritatedVet @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 03:35:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

RE: Vote Vets Special Teams (0.00 / 0)

If you're interested in volunteering, drop me a line.

Count me in for Utah.  

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama

---

by: Chris LeJeune @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:35:35 AM CST

Yeah, I need to talk to you about that. (0.00 / 0)

I'm emailing you.

---

by: Brandon Friedman @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:45:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Responding to the YankeeLiberal piece at DailyKos (0.00 / 0)

  While I'm not in agreement with YankeeLiberal's point of view, I think he makes an interesting point that's worth further debate.  Most of us make an effort to avoid equating our opinion of the morality of the war with our opinion of the morality of the servicemembers executing the war.  However, at least with respect to Iraq, we're rapidly approaching a time (assuming 4 year service obligations) when every servicemember (at least in the Army and Marines) will have either voluntarily joined or elected to remain in the service with full knowledge that (1) they would probably fight in Iraq and (2) the invasion of Iraq was premised on false pretenses, is more or less unrelated to the RGWOT (great term, by the way), etc.  Given that, at that point, everybody in the military will have essentially volunteered with full knowledge that they would be required to participate in and to perpetuate an arguably unjust war, should military servicemembers continue to be fully insulated from the moral consequences of the war?  Does joining the military with a certainty of wartime service necessarily imply an endorsement of the war in which one will serve?  I'm not sure how I feel about this and I'm very interested to hear your opinion.  

---

by: dm @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 13:59:44 PM CST

regardless of when you join (0.00 / 0)

You don't take an oath to support the policies of the president. you take an oath to defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic. regardless of the conflicts we are involved in, many still feel a duty volunteer to fight a legitimate battle for freedom, if called upon.

the common thread that exists between us is that we all have a sense of duty. I got sent to Afghanistan. It works out for me that I got sent to a war I believe in (that is being suppored half ass by the civilian leadership) but before I was sent here I spent 3 1/2 years chasing Iraq. Not because I believe in our action and policies there, but because I felt worthless sitting in garrison while my brothers and sisters were fighting and dying.

maybe this doesnt clear up anthing other than the fact that I am internally conflicted, like im sure we all are to a certain extent.

but my point is that duty and dissent are not mutually exclusive.

I'm on twitter.

---

by: Richard Allen Smith @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 15:55:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

We did swear to obey the orders... (0.00 / 0)

of the president. As long as it is within the UCMJ.

At least those of us who enlisted.

"I, ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Officers are different, I guess?

"I, ___ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of ___ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

---

by: Brian McGough @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 17:39:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

right (0.00 / 0)

your oath is to obey the orders, not to agree with them.

I'm on twitter.

---

by: Richard Allen Smith @ Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 01:24:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and the Nuremberg protocols (0.00 / 0)

don't supercede that oath--they are part of it.

The commander-in-chief is the president first.  If that office has been used to create an illegal situation, the commander-in-chief is issuing invalid orders.There is a raft of valid argument that Iraq is not just a stupidly conceived and planned war, but  is basically a non-war as the Constitution's structure defines it.

I've been having this discussion with the commander of a USMC Officer Selection unit.  His contention that the Prez is solely responsible for foreign policy, therefore is the lone authority on valid war, isn't Constitutionally supported.  He also contends that military objection to orders on the basis of the above authorities would constitute a military coup and destruction of civilian control of the military.  That  doesn't hold up either, when the true limitations of the Prez office are considered.

So it comes down to the c-in-c  and general officers, doesn't it?  Are they issuing illegal orders? This isn't just hair-splitting.  People with solid dedication, morals, and integrity are being destroyed because that's the kind of people they are.  This stinks so bad.

I answered YankeeLiberal, too.

---

by: boadicaea @ Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 05:12:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I signed with the Guard last year, after spending the last 3 years working to end this war (0.00 / 0)

You make an excellent point  that I wish was being addressed in the public debate, boadicaea.
 The responsibility lies with those who defined the misson  in what I feel was outside of the confines of the Constitution.  My oath was taken to the office, to our system of democracy, not an individual.  Having said that, I considered that my views might end me in hot water at some point later in time when I decided to come back in.  I specifically picked an MOS I thought I could serve in that wouldn't keep me awake at night.  That's how I split those hairs for me.  Other people I know have split them differently.

I don't feel civilians should be cut much of a break though. This is their country too, and they are just as responsible for it as anyone in uniform.  We are at war, and if you're not willing or in a category to serve, then you should be out there busting your nuggets to get our politicians to move this thing forward and get it ended.  

I just don't think anyone should get a pass, and get the luxury of non-involvement.  Since he opposes the war on principal,  I hope YankeeLiberal is out spending his money and time working to stop the war, and not just sitting on his backside on the couch feeling morally superior.  There is at least some consistency in that.

---

by: vkfletch @ Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 09:41:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

What a coincidence. That's what I told YL--and asked a (0.00 / 0)

bunch of questions about his work to prevent the alleged "best friend" from joining the Navy. And what YL thought she should do now that she's in.

No response.

---

by: boadicaea @ Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 23:22:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

A Reply (0.00 / 0)

"Does joining the military with a certainty of wartime service necessarily imply an endorsement of the war in which one will serve?"

As one who, having another option, signed up for Viet Nam, I'm not sure.

I volunteered for service in Viet Nam in part because (1) I was feeling not right about the fact friends and acquaintances of mine had served (one was killed) and I hadn't, and (2) I very much wanred a firsthand look at was a very big and controversial deal.

I had no, and stll have no, moral misgivings about serving there.

But apart from wanting the basic necessities to survive and do my job, and to get paid and treated medically, I never thought, and have never thought, individual Americans owed me anything, including respect for my service or expressions of support.

On the other hand, I still have strong negative feelings toward Jane Fonda, who was in North Vietnam while I was in III Corps.

---

by: Viet71 @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 17:46:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

More drumbeating... (4.00 / 1)

...about Iran.

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates - President Bush said Sunday that Iran is threatening the security of the world, and that the United States and Arab allies must join together to confront the danger "before it's too late."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...

---

by: Brian McGough @ Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 09:08:03 AM CST

He needs to be sidelined, badly. What does he want, to be able to sit (0.00 / 0)

back in a comfy chair in Paraguay and entertain himself by watching countries and people burn in the shit he starts next year?

BTW the Washington Times published my letter re the Elaine Donnelly babbles on gays and women in the military http://www.washingtontimes.com...

---

by: boadicaea @ Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 23:31:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Awesome.... (4.00 / 1)

... its great to see people get involved and call this slampeice out for what it is....trash.

Brian

---

by: Brian McGough @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:00:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh, yeah--I spent this whole weekend helping out at (0.00 / 0)

fundraisers for two veterans' groups--an American Legion Post and the San Francisco VFP chapter--at gay bars in San Francisco.

Guess where a lot of vets (HDs on their DD214s) hang out?  And guess who remains proud of their service and distraught over the administration's abuse of the military's dedication?

I think I recruited at least 4 new VFP members.  Being the only female among hundreds of guys gave me so much attention that I really shouldn't take credit for my success, but I will anyway :-)

---

by: boadicaea @ Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 23:41:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]