Disagreeable
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2005
- Messages
- 2,464
- Reaction score
- 0
This is the entire article, but the link is below. My emphasis.
"For all its importance, I think the intrigue of this CIA leak story has had the negative effect of crowding out a daunting story of American courage, service and sacrifice.
This is not a story about politics. Young men and women who join up for the military are not asked which country or which war they want to fight. They are trained, not to make such fateful decisions but to carry them out. The commander in chief elects to invade a country — Iraq, for example. He orders our fighting forces to do it. Period. That's it. You get in there and accomplish the mission. You do your duty as you've promised to do your duty. There are improvised explosive devices on that highway. You go out there and ride it! There are snipers in that town. You go in there and take their shots! That's what you signed up to do.
And boy do they know it!
Even when they get cut down in combat and hurt for life — they are raring to get back into it. They can't wait to get back to their units.
We've got to pay attention to these courageous young Americans. They're soldiers, not politicians. Once they enlist, they give up their right to decide when, if and where our country fights. That's for the civilians, especially the civilian commander-in-chief, to choose.
Something else: the obvious gung-ho spirit and patriotism of our young people is easily made into a political point — by both those who think it was smart to go into Iraq and those who don't.
Those who think it was smart say the commitment of the troops to the mission justifies the mission. If they believe in what they're doing, we should. They go further. They say that the losses families have suffered and are suffering make up a justification for the policy of invading Iraq in the first place.
The other side has said the losses are a case against the Bush policy of going into that country.
Let me offer a separate case: The more loyal our troops, the more courageous they are in facing any mission put before them. Their unwavering determination to do what they're asked to do makes it all the more vital morally that our civilian leaders — the president, the vice president, the secretary of defense and all their important deputies — use their time in office to treasure the lives of our troops, to honor their readiness to serve all of us and sacrifice all of themselves."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5445086/
"For all its importance, I think the intrigue of this CIA leak story has had the negative effect of crowding out a daunting story of American courage, service and sacrifice.
This is not a story about politics. Young men and women who join up for the military are not asked which country or which war they want to fight. They are trained, not to make such fateful decisions but to carry them out. The commander in chief elects to invade a country — Iraq, for example. He orders our fighting forces to do it. Period. That's it. You get in there and accomplish the mission. You do your duty as you've promised to do your duty. There are improvised explosive devices on that highway. You go out there and ride it! There are snipers in that town. You go in there and take their shots! That's what you signed up to do.
And boy do they know it!
Even when they get cut down in combat and hurt for life — they are raring to get back into it. They can't wait to get back to their units.
We've got to pay attention to these courageous young Americans. They're soldiers, not politicians. Once they enlist, they give up their right to decide when, if and where our country fights. That's for the civilians, especially the civilian commander-in-chief, to choose.
Something else: the obvious gung-ho spirit and patriotism of our young people is easily made into a political point — by both those who think it was smart to go into Iraq and those who don't.
Those who think it was smart say the commitment of the troops to the mission justifies the mission. If they believe in what they're doing, we should. They go further. They say that the losses families have suffered and are suffering make up a justification for the policy of invading Iraq in the first place.
The other side has said the losses are a case against the Bush policy of going into that country.
Let me offer a separate case: The more loyal our troops, the more courageous they are in facing any mission put before them. Their unwavering determination to do what they're asked to do makes it all the more vital morally that our civilian leaders — the president, the vice president, the secretary of defense and all their important deputies — use their time in office to treasure the lives of our troops, to honor their readiness to serve all of us and sacrifice all of themselves."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5445086/
