"Private Security Contractors"

[Inkthinker]

Okay, I heard there was some special on a news channel, but A)I've been under a heavy deadline for a couple weeks, and B)I've largely given up on TV news.

But is it finally coming out that "private security contractors" is just outright bullshit for "mercenary"? I mean, I've been saying it since I first heard it, but I know a PC BS term when I hear it, 'cause I have to use 'em from time to time myself (I'm sorry to say).

Listening to Air America from time to time lately, and they've mentioned this some lately. I know, they're the Liberal FOX, and so just as suspect... but they do seem to spend more time repudiating conservative statements with cited sources to support their counter arguments, and less time just outright attacking their Conservative opponents with rhetoric.

So anyhow, I've been hearing some nasty stuff about what these mercenaries are up to.

There's a Presidential Order that protects them from any horrifyingly illegal acts they may perform?

They make hundreds of thousands of dollars in salaries, are better equipped than our own soldiers, and do not answer to the US, or for that matter, ANY government?

They're known to have accidentally gotten into firefights with US and allied troops?

The missing billions were liquidated into cash and paid to these mercenaries? (that sounds too silly to be true, but on the other hand I would REALLY like to hear something definitive on 20 BILLION in missing US taxpayer dollars)

What's the skinny on these mercenaries (and let's not insult each other by calling them anything else) we're paying to supplement US soldiers in the war?

[Steven Grant]

Didn't I write in mid-'03 about the US running mercenaries in Iraq as "private security contractors"?

Like most "private security contractors," they're largely ex-military; many, at least on the management level, are veterans of the Contra campaign. (Not Contras, but Americans who were working directly with them when the government was forbidden to.)

[fumetti]

This is disgusting.

These mercs are being paid for by the American taxpayer. Why are we paying these unaccountable thugs like princes and our own military soldiers like paupers???

[Inkthinker]

Because not enough of us are willing to volounteer for the chance to die in the desert at less than $30K annual salary.

Mercs, on the other hand, generally make over $100K annual, and are not required to patrol hostile combat areas or perform in advanced combat roles... so far as I've heard, they mostly guard oil sites (risky, yes, but far less so that being a US soldier).

Man, the other two topics I brought up got lots of feedback and debate. No-one wants to tackle this?

[DannoE]

Okay, three issues:

1) A lot of private security contractors are actually providing logistical support. This in fact what the vast majority of them do, and they do it FAR cheaper and more effectively than the Army could do it via the Corps of Engineers. Mostly what they do is build semi-permanent infrastructure and then contract current needs to locals at local wages. The US saves on costs two ways: 1) Way less benefits, and 2) Lower local wages vs. US soldier wages.

2) US soldiers actually "cost" way more than they get paid. Even at $100,000/merc, that is still probably more cost effective than sending an infantry battalion.

3) It is a very rare individual who is actually qualified to make the big bucks as a private security contractor. Most of them are ex-SF/Navy SEALS who got out rather than take a job teaching ROTC. Why? Because they enjoy shooting people, and it's people season in Iraq. I have a very close friend who just got back from an 18-month command as an SF team commander (we served together in Korea), and he cannot believe that he's stuck at Norwich teaching when guys are being forced to go overseas. The guy wants nothing more than to go shoot more bad guys; that's why he went through all that crap in the first place. So Drew is going to stay in, but a lot of guys don't. But somebody has to go shoot the bad guys, and you might as well send somebody that's going to hit them with the first bullet. Otherwise you're stuck sending PVT Schmedlap, and he'd rather be home working his day-job 'cause that ain't what joined the guard for in the first place.

[WatsonGlenn]

I'm not happy with the USA using mercenaries or even hired support personnel in combat situations. It smacks of the same sort of degeneracy that caused the Roman empire to use German mercs who eventually took over the Empire.

When the people of a country are unwilling to fill the ranks of it own military that spells trouble.

It only fair to say that I never served in the military so maybe I should shut up and its also true these mercs are American citizens

[Inkthinker]

these mercs are American citizens

Not all of them. Not even, I think, most of them. Many are just professional freelance soldiers that go from country to country, war to war... I suppose you can make quite a lot of money and retire pretty early, if you don't get your bits blown off.

[Drew Van T.]

When the people of a country are unwilling to fill the ranks of it own military that spells trouble.

Trouble for the government that has been directing the military, certainly. But it actually speaks well for the citizenry.

As it happens, I saw a disturbing article (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16033576%255E31477,00.html) today that talked of PMCs (Private Military Companies) trying to step into the kind of warzones where UN Peacekeepers either cannot go or fear to go. It is touting the questionable line that because Peacekeepers aren't always effective, unleashing private dogs of war will somehow solve things (whereas the reality is that in some situations any externally added military presence can only make things worse). With typically laughable "self-imposed guidelines" to make sure that a company out for profit will not turn a lawless no-man's land into a financial free-for-all (odds are always good on that one).

If anything, there is getting to be a need today for a branch of UN peacekeepers specifically tasked to combat mercenaries internationally, one backed up with legal means.

[blast_front]

Many are just professional freelance soldiers that go from country to country, war to war...


Including quite a few "ethnic cleaners" on the lam from Bosnia and South African ex-police and ex-military men from the Apartheid days.

[DannoE]

I don't think that the US Gov't is hiring a bunch of thugs from the backwaters of the world to go act as mercs. I have plenty of friends serving in Iraq and have never, ever heard of such a thing. I can believe that there are a bunch of these guys running around out there, but I would be willing to bet that the majority are working as security service personel for other governments (ie: Syria and anyone else trying to man an embassy in a war zone where their own troops are not up to the task).

Apart from any other consideration, one has to ask why the US Gov't would hire mercs to do combat operations. Our Army (and Marines) have repeatedly proven to be the deadliest fighting force in history. Why would we hire second stringers when the first string is available? We would not.

"Mercenaries" are in theater to provide a service - security, logistics, or construction are the most common ones - for which they are paid. The rest of this is wild speculation made by folks without the first piece of firsthand knowledge about how this crap actually works. I don't say that to put anyone down, but the X-Files was a fictional show invented by a former pro-surfer. There was no truth to be found.

[WatsonGlenn]

Trouble for the government that has been directing the military, certainly. But it actually speaks well for the citizenry.

In what way?

[Drew Van T.]

In what way?

In that the citizenry is not eager to go fight someone's voluntary war, one based on reasons that range from fraudulent (the WMD), to politically suspicious, to downright immoral. Someone who has a minimal awareness of all that and signs up for service regardless, that's one citizen with a few screws loose.

[DannoE]

In that the citizenry is not eager to go fight someone's voluntary war, one based on reasons that range from fraudulent (the WMD), to politically suspicious, to downright immoral. Someone who has a minimal awareness of all that and signs up for service regardless, that's one citizen with a few screws loose.
That isn't true, and if you actually knew any American service members, you would not say that it was. I didn't support the war (for reasons that I don't plan to get into here), but a great many of my friends are fighting in it. Three have died. None of them have or had loose screws.

People join the military for a lot of reasons not least of which is that while you're in it, you are at least actively working towards what you hope is the greater good of society. That beats the crap out of working a desk job to make somebody else's money for them any day of the week, trust me.

It's not asking too much to ask for respect for those who risk their lives trying to do what they believe is right.

Even though the war was ill-conceived and poorly planned at the highest levels, as a civilized society, we have no choice but to hope for its success. There are good things about the US's presence in Iraq just as there were good things about the war in Vietnam. The challenge for government is to succeed more than fail and thereby make the most of what is now a difficult situation. The challenge for society is to demand that government tell the truth and get the results that will produce long-term stability. Society failed in this respect in Vietnam by allowing its leaders to tell lies and support a corrupt government. We were fortunate that the Vietnam war did not produce more terrorists.

Now we are faced with another challenging circumstance, and the risks of failure are much greater. Just throwing rocks and saying, "All of this is bad!" helps no one at all. Anyone can say, "This sucks!" The question is what will you DO.

The US military does not pick its own fights. It fights where and when it is told to fight by its civilian leaders. If you don't like the war, you have no one but yourself to blame.

[WatsonGlenn]

In that the citizenry is not eager to go fight someone's voluntary war, one based on reasons that range from fraudulent (the WMD), to politically suspicious, to downright immoral. Someone who has a minimal awareness of all that and signs up for service regardless, that's one citizen with a few screws loose.


Any country that cannot field an army in times of war is in trouble. It shows a lack of moral courage for the society as a whole. If we are raising a generation of young men who are too scared to prove themselves in combat thats bad.

[Steven Grant]

Watson, the whole notion of "proving yourself in combat" is macho bullshit. I think we have to distinguish at this point between those who joined up following 9/11 and through the early days of the Iraq War, because during that time the public perception was that it was a good war, and it was a noble and honorable and necessary thing to do. So I don't think there's a question that this "generation" is perfectly willing to fight for what they believe to be a good cause. More recently, however, it has become apparent to a much greater portion of the American public that a) the war in Iraq was unnecessary and predicated on a web of fabrications, misdirections and lies, that b) we're now in there accomplishing not much at all while our soldiers function as target practice while being forced to remain there long after their tours of duty expire, and that c) the main value of the war in real terms has been to make oil companies, Halliburton, Bechtel and other concerns richer, and not to make either Iraq or America safer, freer or more secure. So we can't really perceive the current downturn in recruitment to be cowardice, a generation unwilling to "prove" themselves in combat. It's more of a sane and intelligent response to a stupid situation, and the lesson to be learned from it is if you want people to join the military, don't stage unnecessary wars. And when governments stage stupid and unnecessary wars, it is the duty of a democratic nation to oppose them and not collaborate with them, and that's what we're seeing now, and that's why whoever it was said it was a good sign.

[SoulOnIce]

Any country that cannot field an army in times of war is in trouble. It shows a lack of moral courage for the society as a whole. If we are raising a generation of young men who are too scared to prove themselves in combat thats bad.

Are you one of those young men too scared to prove yourself in combat?

[DannoE]

Watson, the whole notion of "proving yourself in combat" is macho bullshit. I think we have to distinguish at this point between those who joined up following 9/11 and through the early days of the Iraq War, because during that time the public perception was that it was a good war, and it was a noble and honorable and necessary thing to do. So I don't think there's a question that this "generation" is perfectly willing to fight for what they believe to be a good cause. More recently, however, it has become apparent to a much greater portion of the American public that a) the war in Iraq was unnecessary and predicated on a web of fabrications, misdirections and lies, that b) we're now in there accomplishing not much at all while our soldiers function as target practice while being forced to remain there long after their tours of duty expire, and that c) the main value of the war in real terms has been to make oil companies, Halliburton, Bechtel and other concerns richer, and not to make either Iraq or America safer, freer or more secure. So we can't really perceive the current downturn in recruitment to be cowardice, a generation unwilling to "prove" themselves in combat. It's more of a sane and intelligent response to a stupid situation, and the lesson to be learned from it is if you want people to join the military, don't stage unnecessary wars. And when governments stage stupid and unnecessary wars, it is the duty of a democratic nation to oppose them and not collaborate with them, and that's what we're seeing now, and that's why whoever it was said it was a good sign.
I agree with 85-90% of that, but the issue is that just leaving now won't actually help. That is why retention is up. The vets are staying in because they know that the Army is committed. The invasion was a bad idea, but that was 2 years ago. I opposed it then. But that still leaves us with a real problem that requires a real solution. That solution is more complex than saying, "Don't support the government's ill-conceived war."

Had John Kerry won the election, he likely would have raised troop levels in the short-term in order to build real stability AND THEN leave on a more aggressive timeline. But of course that didn't happen.

[bartl]

Are you one of those young men too scared to prove yourself in combat?
I am! I am! (I had about a dozen plans to avoid the Vietnam era draft, but then they ended it a week before my 18th birthday).

[SoulOnIce]

I am! I am! (I had about a dozen plans to avoid the Vietnam era draft, but then they ended it a week before my 18th birthday).

We have a lot of you guys up here in Canada! ;)

[bartl]

We have a lot of you guys up here in Canada! ;)
I thought Carter pardoned all of them.

[WatsonGlenn]

So I don't think there's a question that this "generation" is perfectly willing to fight for what they believe to be a good cause.

Really? I'm sure you're wrong. There is clearly a "question" about it. What the answer to that question is I do not know but to say with a straight face that there is no "question" about it, is absurd.


As for your opinion about the war, it is shared by many. It allso incorrect, IMO and in the opinion of many others. Don't pretend that eveyone or evne most people have decideded that the war is not a good idea. In the USA the way we make these decisions is through elections and the pro war side has won the last few.

[WatsonGlenn]

Are you one of those young men too scared to prove yourself in combat?

I am not going to let this turn into another thread about me.

[Steven Grant]

I agree with 85-90% of that, but the issue is that just leaving now won't actually help. That is why retention is up. The vets are staying in because they know that the Army is committed.
Retention among vets is up mainly because the Army won't let them go.

I suspect Kerry would have upped troop strength but not started an exit strategy, for fear of looking "weak" before his re-election campaign.

[Steven Grant]

As for your opinion about the war, it is shared by many. It allso incorrect, IMO and in the opinion of many others. Don't pretend that eveyone or evne most people have decideded that the war is not a good idea. In the USA the way we make these decisions is through elections and the pro war side has won the last few.
Oh, I'm sure there are still quite a few people who support the war and think it's a good idea, but the people who don't has risen considerably in the last six months alone, as more and more revelations come out about the level of manipulation, disinformation and "bad intelligence" (a great phrase) that got us into Iraq, not to mention the profiteering going on by companies "serving" American needs there has come out. Disenchantment is strong and growing, and I'm not talking about among those who opposed the war before the war. On the other hand, if you're referring to young people who do think we should be at war in Iraq who don't want to "test themselves in combat," then, yes, that group certainly has a problem. Anyone who thinks someone else should, or should be required to, fight their wars for them has a big problem. Then again, chickenhawks are traditionally a problem.

[WatsonGlenn]

Oh, I'm sure there are still quite a few people who support the war and think it's a good idea, but the people who don't has risen considerably in the last six months

Yeah, it amazing how democrats are able to figure out what the majority of the public is thinking and what they want, inbetween elections, its uncanny.

Anyone who thinks someone else should, or should be required to, fight their wars for them has a big problem. Then again, chickenhawks are traditionally a problem.

As far as I know its mostly democrats who have brought up the idea of drafting anyone. You are the first one in this thread to bring up the notion of "requiring" anyone to fight.

[Steven Grant]

I wasn't actually speaking of the draft (though, yeah, idiot Democrats keep bringing it up but there are Republicans who support one too, though not many Republicans or Democrats want one.

What I was talking about are those of service age who think the war is a cool idea and it's a fight we should be in, but who don't sign up to serve. Obviously, they think doing the actual "fighting" (or getting shot at, as the case may be) is someone else's job. Chickenhawks.

Phil Ochs song:

"I hate Chou En-Lai
and I hope he dies
but one thing you gotta see
is someone's gotta go over there
but that someone isn't me.
So I wish you well, Sarge, give 'em hell.
Kill me a thousand or so.
And if you ever have a war
without blood or gore
I'll be the first to go..."

I have nothing against people who sign up to help their country fight a war.
I have nothing against those who think a war is a bad war and don't sign up.
It's the ones who think a war should be fought but aren't willing to be the ones fighting it who deserve no respect.

[Inkthinker]

How many Senators and Congressmen have sons and daughters in Iraq?

I'm asking quite seriously... are there any? I know several are combat veterans (oddly enough, IIRC, those members are usually against the war, but what do they know, right?), but do any current lawmakers have children at risk in a combat zone?

[WatsonGlenn]

How many Senators and Congressmen have sons and daughters in Iraq?

I'm asking quite seriously... are there any? I know several are combat veterans (oddly enough, IIRC, those members are usually against the war, but what do they know, right?), but do any current lawmakers have children at risk in a combat zone?

If there were none or just a few would you think that would be a bad sign of the country's cultural character?

[Book Nasty]

I am not going to let this turn into another thread about me.

Seems to me like a fair question to ask since you're one of the most vocal supporters of the war on this board. I don't see why you aren't over there fighting if you believe in this war so much. With recruitment as low as it is, they need all the help they can get.

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=19300

[bartl]

How many Senators and Congressmen have sons and daughters in Iraq?
A) How many Senators and Congressmen have sons and daughters old enough to be in Iraq?

B) What is the significance of this (unless you believe that parents have the right to force their children to enter the military)?

[Inkthinker]

A) How many Senators and Congressmen have sons and daughters old enough to be in Iraq?

B) What is the significance of this (unless you believe that parents have the right to force their children to enter the military)?


A)Good question. I guess knowing that would answer part of the question. Given that most of them are over 50, I should think that many of them have children of age or older for the service. Of course, I'm sure that many of those children have careers of their own.

B)None, perhaps. I do think it's easier to justify the necessity of the deaths of people in your own mind if you don't have a personal link to them, but I'm certain that no politician holding office in this country would ever needlessly spend the lives of others for anything but the highest ideals.

[Steven Grant]

At any rate, I've noticed in my time that those who tend to talk the most about the nobility or necessity of fighting and dying for "your country" usually aren't the ones doing the fighting and dying. And I've never met a returned soldier who regretted not dying for his country, though I've certainly met some who would have regretted not fighting for their country. And some who regretted fighting and wished they hadn't fought.

[bartl]

At any rate, I've noticed in my time that those who tend to talk the most about the nobility or necessity of fighting and dying for "your country" usually aren't the ones doing the fighting and dying. And I've never met a returned soldier who regretted not dying for his country, though I've certainly met some who would have regretted not fighting for their country. And some who regretted fighting and wished they hadn't fought.

"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his."
General George S. Patton

[Inkthinker]

"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his."
General George S. Patton


Heehee... :D

I love that quote. Just remember, though... "the other bastard" may be you.

[NatGertler]

That explains much, that our object in wars has not been to improve situations, but merely to make people die. So I guess we can judge all of our wars to be successes.

yipee.

[WatsonGlenn]

At any rate, I've noticed in my time that those who tend to talk the most about the nobility or necessity of fighting and dying for "your country" usually aren't the ones doing the fighting and dying.


History is repleat with the word and stories of men who fought for their country and are proud and glad they did. There has never been a lack of veterans to encourage younger men to join the military and do their duty. So to say that "usually" the only people that believe in the necessity of fighting for your country, are life long civilians is absurd.

[WatsonGlenn]

That explains much, that our object in wars has not been to improve situations, but merely to make people die.

Is this obvious fact something you really needed to have explained to you? Is this a new concept for you?

[NatGertler]

If you accept it, then why do you claim "It shows a lack of moral courage for the society as a whole" for folks not to sign up for the cause of killing? It would seem to me to be a sign of moral failure to sign up for something where killing people is the ultimate goal, rather than an unfortunately necessary step toward some higher goal.

[DannoE]

That explains much, that our object in wars has not been to improve situations, but merely to make people die. So I guess we can judge all of our wars to be successes.

yipee.
War is a tool. We kill people and break their things until they have no choice but to do what we want them to do. Any other view of the purpose of war (and for that matter, of the Army) is a distortion. This is why it's important to choose the right battles - because the battles themselves are horrifc for all involved.

Now we have killed people and broken things. Like it or not, there are national responsibilities inherent in making that choice.

[WatsonGlenn]

If you accept it, then why do you claim "It shows a lack of moral courage for the society as a whole" for folks not to sign up for the cause of killing?


If I remember correctly I was asking if this was true.

[NatGertler]

If I remember correctly I was asking if this was true.You do not remember correctly. "Any country that cannot field an army in times of war is in trouble. It shows a lack of moral courage for the society as a whole."

[bartl]

You do not remember correctly. "Any country that cannot field an army in times of war is in trouble. It shows a lack of moral courage for the society as a whole."
Just thinking out loud here (figuratively speaking, of course).

Societies of pacifists, who will not fight no matter what the provocation, probably have a great deal of moral courage. Unfortunately, they have a nasty tendency to be destroyed by cultures who don't have as high values.

[NatGertler]

Oh, I certainly would agree that a country that cannot field an army when attacked is apt to be killed. And eaten, if they are an especially tasty country.

Which is one of the stronger arguments against chosing to start wars like our little Iraqi adventure. Things like this discourage enlistment from people who would be willing to enlist to actually defend our country.

[Drew Van T.]

I agree with 85-90% of that, but the issue is that just leaving now won't actually help. That is why retention is up. The vets are staying in because they know that the Army is committed. The invasion was a bad idea, but that was 2 years ago. I opposed it then. But that still leaves us with a real problem that requires a real solution. That solution is more complex than saying, "Don't support the government's ill-conceived war.

If one can accept that it was wrong to invade, then it doesn't seem much of a stretch from there to concluding that staying and occupying may have been an equally bad idea (a decision made by the very same people, to boot).

Leaving now will most definitely help the situation; it would have helped much sooner if they'd withdrawn much sooner. Even Jack Straw (Britain's foreign minister who played a significant part in orchestrating the invasion) admitted today, for the first time, that US-UK troops are "part of the problem". (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102&sid=aKJXi2KTvzHU&refer=uk)


See, the continuing presence of American troops is helping to create a space in which all sorts of terrorists (foreign as well as native) are able to thrive alongside native nationalist insurgents (the ones whose sole, overriding aim is to remove foreign troops and American corporations from Iraq) and also for those who aim to foster sectarian (Sunni vs. Shia) conflicts. Removing that American presence will gradually close the window of opportunity handed to the terrorists in Iraq by the invasion/occupation, as the nationalist insurgents will start laying down their arms when the Americans leave, while the average Iraqi - currently caught in a hellish crossfire of terrorist car bombs and trigger-happy American guns - will have at least one major grievance less. Sure, after withdrawal Iraq will still have to deal with the terrorists and avoid sectarian violence, but IMO they can accomplish these things just fine - better in fact - on their own. Iraq would be able to begin a real recovery process: not just recovering from Saddam Hussein and from the Gulf WarS but also recovering from the national trauma and humiliation of being invaded and occupied, having their sovereignty so violated, and having so many things imposed on them from outside by a distant, brutish power.

Besides, it's clear that withdrawal is now inevitable (and you might say that it has been inevitable from the very start of this business) and that the insurgents have for all intents and purposes won: they have made it too costly for Bush to stay in Iraq, and that is all they ever needed to do. Any individual who signs up with the military now to serve in Iraq will in effect be signing up only for a short extension to a failed pet project of this administration...and that's not a very idealistic action, now is it, even for someone who is still convinced that Iraq was meant to be an idealistic project.

The lesson is "don't stage unnecessary wars"...and...don't continue counter-productive troop presences, either.

[WatsonGlenn]

IMO they can accomplish these things just fine - better in fact - on their own.

Yeah, becaue they were doing such a hell of a good job running things before the US arrived.

Besides, it's clear that withdrawal is now inevitable

This is great logic. In a year or so Bush will withdraw victorious from Iraq and liberals have nothing left to do but set the ground work for how they "forced" him to leave. If he stays in Iraq he is a war monger. If he leaves its an exmple of one more inevitable defeat for American. Everybody cheer. Jane Fonda was right again.

Any individual who signs up with the military now to serve in Iraq will in effect be signing up only for a short extension to a failed pet project of this administration.

Other wise known as "serving your country in time of war."

The lesson is "don't stage unnecessary wars"...and...don't continue counter-productive troop presences, either.

I think the USA is learning a differant lesson. Vote Republican.

[DannoE]

If one can accept that it was wrong to invade, then it doesn't seem much of a stretch from there to concluding that staying and occupying may have been an equally bad idea (a decision made by the very same people, to boot).

Leaving now will most definitely help the situation; it would have helped much sooner if they'd withdrawn much sooner. Even Jack Straw (Britain's foreign minister who played a significant part in orchestrating the invasion) admitted today, for the first time, that US-UK troops are "part of the problem". (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102&sid=aKJXi2KTvzHU&refer=uk)


See, the continuing presence of American troops is helping to create a space in which all sorts of terrorists (foreign as well as native) are able to thrive alongside native nationalist insurgents (the ones whose sole, overriding aim is to remove foreign troops and American corporations from Iraq) and also for those who aim to foster sectarian (Sunni vs. Shia) conflicts. Removing that American presence will gradually close the window of opportunity handed to the terrorists in Iraq by the invasion/occupation, as the nationalist insurgents will start laying down their arms when the Americans leave, while the average Iraqi - currently caught in a hellish crossfire of terrorist car bombs and trigger-happy American guns - will have at least one major grievance less. Sure, after withdrawal Iraq will still have to deal with the terrorists and avoid sectarian violence, but IMO they can accomplish these things just fine - better in fact - on their own. Iraq would be able to begin a real recovery process: not just recovering from Saddam Hussein and from the Gulf WarS but also recovering from the national trauma and humiliation of being invaded and occupied, having their sovereignty so violated, and having so many things imposed on them from outside by a distant, brutish power.

Besides, it's clear that withdrawal is now inevitable (and you might say that it has been inevitable from the very start of this business) and that the insurgents have for all intents and purposes won: they have made it too costly for Bush to stay in Iraq, and that is all they ever needed to do. Any individual who signs up with the military now to serve in Iraq will in effect be signing up only for a short extension to a failed pet project of this administration...and that's not a very idealistic action, now is it, even for someone who is still convinced that Iraq was meant to be an idealistic project.

The lesson is "don't stage unnecessary wars"...and...don't continue counter-productive troop presences, either.I read all of that stuff that you're talking about here, and this week's Newsweek has a couple of good articles that pretty much agree with you. I personally would like to see a withdrawal, but I would hope that it is better planned and more effectively managed than the first few months after the invasion were. But I don't have a lot of faith that it will be, and in the end I fear that future generations will regard this as one of the more disreputable periods in American history.

But I think you're wrong about serving in the military, and I know you're wrong about why guys join up. As a new generation of vets come home, we should support them, and pointing out their leaders' failures doesn't help them too much IMO. But I could be too close to it personally.