Propaganda-wise, that is in fact the message it sends, which shouldn’t exactly comfort this war’s proponents. Because the longer we’re there, the longer it will be before that message is forgotten.
In reality, of course, there are different kinds of missions. Our military is primarily designed for wars against the uniformed militaries of other nations, and we’re still the champs there.
The problem of course is, after Saddam’s or the Taliban’s army has been vanquished, then you’re in a completely different kind of combat, one which our military and its antecedents haven’t excelled at since Mosby’s Raiders closed up shop.
And being the ‘away’ team in this sort of war pretty much means that unless you’re willing to slaughter whole populations to defeat an insurgent enemy, the other side simply has to not lose, a fact not lost on George Washington when the British and Hessians were the ‘away’ team 230 years ago. People who forget this have lost sight of our own history.
Airman Doors, if Bush as expected announces the “surge” plan tonight, which will require more troops in Iraq, probably National Guard and Reserve troops doing second, third, or even further multiple tours… how long do you figure it will be before we start seeing significant numbers of – well, I’m not sure what the term would be… desertion? refusal to follow orders? derilection of duty?
I’m reading about isolated cases like Lt. Ehren Watada now, and wondering. Apart from the moral and ethical objections a soldier/sailor/airman/marine might have personally, I know my mom is getting more and more angry thinking that my brother will have to do another tour in Baghdad. Surely there are families whose lives have been much more impacted by these deployments who are a LOT angrier.
I’m not entirely convinced that the particular relevant people (Bush, Cheney, the neocons) who forgot this have ever actually known the implications of that portion of our history…
