Replies

It’s very possible that the Powers that Be had this silly notion that soldier sometimes are killed or wounded in a war. That is why they are considered “heroes” by most people - they put their lives and bodies on the line for the rest of us. I doubt they foresaw the media push for a 100% invulnerable military force - one in which only the enemy would be killed or wounded and all American Forces would ride in air-conditioned comfort.

As much as I did not enjoy earning my Purple Heart, and as much as I did not enjoy seeing American Soldiers, Marines and Sailors killed or wounded (I never witnessed an American Airman get it) it is almost a necessity. The risk of taking casualties is about the only thing that keeps us out of a war.

With a 100% invulnerable military force there would be little reason not to wage war - except for the fiscal cost.

I am not advocating a return to Napoleonic uniforms and tactics, but the public outrage over how “unsafe” this war has become is starting to grate on my nerves.

Gets on my nerves, too. We got into very bad habits in the Balkans. There, force protection was the primary mission, and whatever else we tried to accomplish, we dared not lose anybody doing it, because everybody recognized that there was nothing in Kosovo worth dying for. We made prisoners of our troops in fortified base camps and only let them out to patrol in full battle rattle. The Brits laughed at us and called us ninja turtles.

Force protection is not the mission in Iraq or Afghanistan. We have an enemy who must be closed with and destroyed. We have a Three Block War to fight on Urban Terrain. Our soldiers and Marines have to be able to transition from passing out candy to kids and smiling at their mothers to reacting to an IED explosion and engaging insurgents in a millisecond. . . . urban warfare is like a knife fight-chaotic, close range, and extremely bloody.

I don't think the troops can accomplish all their missions mounted in armored vehicles. I don't think we are doing the troops any favors if we encourage any of them to think they are entitled to an armored vehicle. Only 19K's and 1812's ought to be entitled to armored vehicles, and a lot of them are patrolling in humvees now. It is not above and beyond the call of duty to ride in an unarmored vehicle, and if we let that notion take hold we can't fight wars anymore. I think that is what some people have in mind.

I am not advocating a return to Napoleonic uniforms and tactics, but the public outrage over how “unsafe” this war has become is starting to grate on my nerves.

Mine too. While I'm very, very sorry that some of our loved ones will not be coming home, war is not bloodless. Of course if the Iraqi street would rise up against those who plant bombs along the roadways and fire upon us from mosques then there wouldn't be a problem. Same goes for American muslims who've been just as silent.

I doubt they foresaw the media push for a 100% invulnerable military force - one in which only the enemy would be killed or wounded and all American Forces would ride in air-conditioned comfort.

Of course if they were, then the media would argue about how unfair the death rate is, like they do with Israel, or recently did with Thailand.