By Saving Lives

May 31, 2010 6:53 AM | Link to this

After being raised in a military family (and all 5 of us siblings served in the military) my job now as a defense contractor is to develop effective weapons systems so that as few Americans as possible have to be put into harms’ way when armed conflict occurs. So, when you (and others) report “…how few Americans are actually bearing the real sacrifices,” that tells me that I’ve done my job well – fewer Americans’ lives are put at risk. I suspect that with future conflicts (with the further development of UAVs and other technologies), that even fewer percentages of Americans will have to be deployed. That’s a good thing and should be applauded rather than derided.

By Kurt

May 31, 2010 7:35 AM | Link to this

How sad and tragic, that we have fought for people to have freedom and liberty abroad, and have elected pure evil and tyranny right here in the White House, and Congress. This election in Nov, is the most important for the country—since 1860.

By Max

May 31, 2010 8:59 AM | Link to this

I am retired Army and a veteran of three ‘wars’ as well as a few shorter ops. While I don’t speak for every soldier I think there is a consensus the political goals were not or are not any of our concern. I served with the 101st and the quoted speech is a repeat of all speeches by all branches of service before going into harms way. It is inspiring to the young ‘bucks’ while more senior members, like myself, who have heard it all before know what is to follow. That’s the vestige of combat experience for all soldiers worldwide; don’t go to war unless there is a will to wage total war to keep it as short, decisive, and using an economy of force. From Korea until now that has not been the use of our military assets. The 20th Century saw the U.S. involved in a dozen or so wars of which only the People - Congress - declared a state of war in only two of them. Outsiders of the military do not understand what less than a total effort does to combat units and their leadership. The Romans had a similar dilema as they built their empire and eventually lost it because all the world was not Roman nor subscribed to Roman rule. We find ourselves in a similar situation with many monuments to wars and cemeteries for war dead at near capacity. Remembering is an appropriate thing to do on this day. It is also appropriate to contemplate if our will to wage war when necessary has an attention span exceeding one season of American Idol.

By Max

May 31, 2010 9:29 AM | Link to this

Saving Lives: The R&D of weaponry is a different can of worms. I was assigned as project officer for a piece of equipment being ‘de-bugged’ at Anniston Army Depot. Initally, I fired all civilians other than those I could not fire because they belonged to the contractor. The workers were either drunk or away from their jobs when I arrived. Their average hourly wages were in excess of $20 an hour billable to the taxpayers. At that time (it has changed) waste and cost overruns were the rule while the troops recieved equipment that neither worked nor was really needed. My six months in Afghanistan in the fall/winter of 2001-02 saw my team de-greasing M-14’s and picking up AK’s instead of trusting standard issue weapons. They (5.56mm)don’t work in that terrain. Today, the waste continues as we develop air assets when there are no, and will be no, perceivable threat to challenge current levels of performance or readiness. The Pentagon and the service branches are at odds about theories in the conduct of war. The Penatgon argues technology (i.e. remote controlled aircraft UAV’s) is the way of war in the future. The services return with the question, “How do you hold territory by remote control?” As we, the Army, have repeatedly found, low tech beats high tech any day when low tech enjoys home field advantage; to wit, Iraq and Afghanistan or go back to the lessons of Viet Nam. In short, UAV’s missions are limited and have no meaning without boots on the ground. Your arguement such technologies reduce the numbers of soldiers placed in harms way is not found in history or in the current conflicts. In fact, the same techologies aid in a rush to wars which can neither be sustained or arrive at decisive goals while deployments of soldiers and Marines escalate. That’s the reality which I think Memorial Day should also enable us to contemplate.

By xlt

May 31, 2010 9:59 AM | Link to this

In modern times, one of the faults that has occurred in the contemplation of war is dishonesty. With VietNam, we had the Gulf of Tonkin as a way to build up the war. The Gulf of Tonkin was a lie. In the War in Iraq, Nuclear type WMD’s was the propaganda reason for the war. Essentially, yet another lie. There were other lies in the buildup in Iraq but, the WMD lie was the biggie. I am a veteran, my father and grandfather are veterans. And, all of us have seen what horrors war produces; both abroad and at home. No question, we all will fight for our country. But make no mistake, if the govt lies about a reason for war, they should be cursed.

By nyc

May 31, 2010 11:17 PM | Link to this

thank you bush

By TRS

May 31, 2010 11:57 PM | Link to this

Pity xlt brings politics into a good editorial. Seems this will be an ongoing disagreement for time to come but a lie is a false or misleading statement with intent to deceive. There was no intent to deceive, only bad intel and nothing has ever been proven otherwise. There are many quotes which reflect those of both parties believed the alleged “lie” and the logic that WMDs were not found, therefore a “lie” was told makes no sense at all. If you want to question whether we should have gone to war based on that intel, that is one thing but to continually mischaracterize the events which led up to Iraq as a lie makes the accuser the one who is actually having great difficulty with the truth.

By J

June 1, 2010 10:08 AM | Link to this

Kurt, you can’t elect tyranny. That’s cognitive dissonance at its finest. TRS, you don’t know there was intent to deceive and your defense of ‘bad intel’ is belied by one simple fact: Since there were no WMDs found, there had to be, and was, a whole lot of intel saying just that. There was plenty of good intel there, and probably more than we heard at the time and even know about now. As for the post, itself, the ‘reduced’ cost has ano0ther edge, and that’s the lowered profiles of the wars in our daily consxiousness. We should always be aware, daily, of the sheer gravity of what we are about when we use military force, both to honor our troops and understand, as much as possible, what they are going through, and what the consequences might be of our actions. A UAV might be a great way to keep soldiers alive, and makes great press release video, but the problem is tht it never makes a good case for our cause to the people we need to join our cause. Only the boots on the ground can do that. They are our best ambassadors. General Petraeus A UAV can’t win hearts and minds, and you can’t win a war like this without the hearts and minds. And there are never enough ways to show our appreciation.

By TRS

June 1, 2010 5:51 PM | Link to this

J - the benefit of hindsight is always wonderful isn’t it? The intel community weighed the evidence and came to its conclusion. It wasn’t just our intel, but international intel as well. It would be wonderful if all calls could be 100% correct at all times but that simply is not possible. The only thing we have to go on is the preponderance of the evidence. That is what happened. The Prez, many in his adminstration and many elected officials of both parties agreed with that evidence. If you disagree with their conclusions, I’m fine with that; but, to say purposeful and deceitful lying and deception were involved as if it were fact is political rhetoric not based on fact; rather, a dislike for either the war or Prez Bush.