Replies

The problem is that you are seeking a judicial solution to what is fundamentally a political problem. Decisions about rules of engagement, treatment of captured enemy agents, etc. are fundamentally political decisions. War is, after all, the continuation of politics by other means. War and its conduct is not judicial, it is political. The military would like to leave it to a mindless process and say that the process is working so no one has to gage where they are on the political correctness meter. Congress just told them hey, this really is political, make your decision like a man and like the commissioned officer we said you are and stand up and be counted.

Yours is a cynical and incorrect assessment.

The reality of political wars is that they never succeed. It seems clear that the current administration has gone out of their way to allow the soldiers in theater to make the strategic, as well as the tactical decisions. War is not the contination of policy, it is the imposition of policy, after a failed attempt at continuation. It is completely judicial; it is a punitive measure against resistance of a stated policy.

I believe you are measuring the current conflict through the prism of Vietnam, whereby everything you said would be accurate in those times. In current times, the Armed Services are not steered by the political whims of their civilian leaders, but are guided by the UCMJ in the fulfillment of their duties, as stated by the CINC.

You have joined the long line of persons unable to accept that the Military bears no resemblance to civilian society. It does not make conditions or exceptions to it's rules, in accordance with politically correct mandate. It (usually) is unconcerned about discussions like this and others as to the correctness of their actions against Col. West. Only if Bush or Rumsfeld were to insert themselves into this issue would it become political, in the manner that Congress appears ready to do, but I believe their efforts will be resisted, and no amount of positive PR on behalf of Col. West will save him from the apparent fact that he broke the code.

Your problem is that you like a lot of folks around here don't know what politics is. You write:

The reality of political wars is that they never succeed....the current administration has gone out of their way to allow the soldiers in theater to make the strategic, as well as the tactical decisions. War is not the contination of policy, it is the imposition of policy, after a failed attempt at continuation. It is completely judicial; it is a punitive measure against resistance of a stated policy.

This statement is so self-contradictory as to be laughable. The imposition of a policy by force is exactly what von Clausowitz meant by "war is a continuation of policy by other means." War is conducted by the state to to execute a policy. It is by its very nature political. This is a very different statement than what you are trying to turn it into which is politicians trying to micromanage the fighting of a war themselves. Establishing rules of engagement - which is a high level policy decision - is not mircromanagement. That is what Washington does for its living.

You have joined the long line of persons unable to accept that the Military bears no resemblance to civilian society.

Having retired as an 06 I am staunchly a proud member of those who believe that the military is unavoidably and must be a strong reflection of our civil society. This is not exactly a new idea. Thucydides writes at great length about this subject. War and Peace (War and Society, properly translated) is 1500 pages on this theme.

The issue is fundamentally and essentially political. It is about the policies of the U.S. Bush and Rumsfeld inserting themselves into the discussion or abtaining are both political decisions.