This thread, now that it has turned away from the manipulative intent it was started with, has gotten very interesting. Great couple of posts from Jim Mc and Teribus.

Jim, I don't know that I buy into the contention that they are better informed or that they have a more "healthy suspicion of all things Middle-Eastern; more acute than that hatred of 'The Yellow Man'". Don't forget that the Vietnam era soldier was raised in the 1950's by the WWII generation. They were raised in the Cold War era, and the propaganda about the ChiCom's and Communists in general was very sophisticated and there were fewer sources of alternative news. The news media was much more of a news source and much less of an entertainment organism. Also, the ethic of reporting the news was much healthier. It was a result of the Vietnam era reporting that caused the current control of the media.

But I do find some agreement on the issue of the ethos of today's soldier. But I find that to be a breakdown in societal values. I think these young ones are brave, and driven by many ideals. But because of the general societal breakdown in the day to day values of right and wrong, they often don't see the immorality in the act. When that is thrown into a combat, life and death situation, where it is hard to distinguish under the best of circumstances, and you get a recipe for what we are seeing.

I deplore what I am seeing. But it is not a new or unique situation. The references to My Lai are fair examples. One can find this kind of brutality in every war. The slaughter at the bridge in Korea (name escapes me), the killing fields of Cambodia, and on and on. I will agree with our GUEST on one point. War is the ultimate breakdown of the human condition. It is the worst failure of use of the gifts given to us by the Greatest One. But sometimes it is necessary, and thank God that ordinary folks are willing to step up when the time is right. But they are ordinary folks. They trust their leaders to only expend their lives, and their families lives, only when it is a complete necessity.

That is the failing this time. We have hundreds of dead soldiers, thousands of dead Iraqui's, a country destroyed, and for what? The aim of taking out a despotic leader is fine, but don't the warriors have the right to expect that their leadership has a plan? Is it too much to ask for intelligence that would have anticipated this mess? Shouldn't that same intelligence have told them that this wasn't the time or the way? Why is it OK to send the flower of our youth off to a suspect operation that is costing thousands of lives on both sides, never mind the dollars spent, but it wasn't OK to arm the Iraqui resistance and let these folks handle their own affairs? The answer to the last one is obvious. Because we didn't trust them to install the "right kind of democracy".

I was talking to a neighbor last night. He is a somewhat conservative Christian. His contention was that we couldn't let these folks set up just any government, because it might be a radical government. I forced the issue and got him to admit that it couldn't be Islamic. I then asked him what the difference was between that and what we have in place in the States now. He said it was different here. I don't see it.

My hope is that this scandal focuses the light where it belongs. That is surely on the top levels of the Pentagon, but even more it is on our own society. These things happen when we don't understand certain concepts such as honor. These things happen when warriors are not given a very specific code of conduct. To be effective, one must drill into the warrior what we stand for, and what is acceptable. When that is clear, you see the heroic actions such as Teribus took. That is what distinguishes a warrior from a thug. The ability, in the middle of the worst madness that humankind can wreak, to step back and refuse to cross certain lines. In fact, be willing to die rather than commit the atrocity.

Mick