Here goes once again:
Army recruiting goals are not down. In fact, in 2006 the army successfully recruited the most soldiers since 1999. I have to post a link for this as otherwise I would just be blowing steam:
http://www.army.mil/recruitingandretention/ I post this reluctantly because I don't want to start a link war, but I think the numbers, in this instance, are appropriate. In addition, the active endstrength is up to the largest number since 1995 (clinton was cutting back the military at that time). The recruiting goals were not reduced, but rather were raised to 80,000 active army and similar numbers for the other services.
My actions are not governend by international treaties... Rather the uniform code of military justice reflects our interpretation of those treaties.
For example: The military's decision to avoid the use of hollowpoint bullets. This is done because of an agreement aimed at preventing 'unecessary pain and suffering.' As a soldier I am held responsible by my own government (not anybody elses!) should I use non-approved ammunition. However, our government has interpreted 'unecessary' differently from other governments and allows, in some cases, the use of hollowpoint bullets.
Example 1: Our snipers use HPBT bullets because the hollow point causes an air vortex that greatly increases the accuracy of the ammunition....this is considered entirely necessary and is not done to cause additional suffering.
Example 2: Law of Land Warfare provides against the mistreatment and/or execution of prisioners and injured on the battlefield. The US Interpretation of this binds soldiers uner UCMJ. But it is our interpretation because at the end of the day fights are down and dirty and sometimes you have to be brutal to survive: Other countries don't always agree with our interpretation. I am not talking here about torture, but rather when you risk your life to take a combatant prisioner verses simply shooting him again so you can continue to fight. Sometimes it's justified, sometimes it's murder.
That single defector may have claimed that Saddams chemical weapons were destroyed, but even Clinton has come forward to state that his administration (who was in power in 1995) honestly believed Saddam had his chemical weapons stockpile. Furthermore, we have sniffers to detect CW residue. Even if they were destroyed we would know about it (at least now after the war)....We even asked Saddam to simply take us to the locations where the weapons were destroyed and we would have been able to confirm their destruction...didn't happen.
I need to clarify an Illegal order: A soldier may be ordered to do something 'Illegal' and be obligated to obey. For instance, if a general orders one of his subbordinates to attack a town and he refuses, his men are still under his command and obligated to obey him until the general relieves him of command. It may be 'illegal' to kick in the door to an Iraqi storefront, but if you are told to do it you are obligated to do so...it isn't your place to argue with everything. A good example is George S Patton, who on more than one occasion launched a 'reconnaissance in force' when ordered not to attack. He disobeyed his orders, but his men were still bound to obey him. He saved many lives as a result because he better understood the situation on the ground than his superiors.
Claiming that congress and the president are responsible for our troops in time of war is partially accurate....They are responsible for the decision to send them into harms way. However, suggesting that they are in the unfortunate situation of having to decide whether a particular action is worth the potential cost in american lives. They are ultimately people operating in an uncertain world who have to make hard decisions....It is possible that somewhere bad decisions were made, but that doesn't mean they were criminal, just incorrect.
Ok, we both agree that saddam was a bad guy and he isn't the focal point of this discussion. However, though America may have broken international law, that is something for the international community to decide and to act upon...it in no way absolves the American soldier from his responsiblity to enforce the will of the United States. America is a very polarized country...always has been and probably always will be. The only reason the military manages to win anything is because it works as a unified entity. After the decision has been made you have to proceed in unison. Had we made the decisoin to enter WW2 earlier, we could have ended the war quicker and saved millions of lives. However, we were divided as a country and the decison was made, in this case, to stay out of the war. If those who thought war was justified all took up arms they would have been held accountable just as those who disagree with war and refuse to fight are held accountable.
Your neighbor analogy is flawed. We took action in Iraq because nobody else would. We played the role of police while all of Saddams neighbors stood around and watched. The United Nations is ineffective, cumberson, and corrupt. We had a ceasefire agreement with Saddam from the first war. We agreed to leave him in power provided he met certain conditions. He systematically broke every single one of those conditions so we were justified in continuing the war. However, first, we tried to resolve things diplomatically and through the UN, which was done out of the goodness of our hearts and a desire to be 'liked' by other countries. We got plenty of resolutions passed, but the UN refused to enforce them. The actions of the UN are tainted by politics (like everything else in the world) and the UN was perfectly happy to frustrate the united states in any way possible. Several UN member nations were also receiving oil at rock bottom prices for the first time due to the oil-for-food program and Koffi Annon (via his sun) was accepting huge payments directly from Saddam Hussein. Yet this is the organization to whom you would have the United States submit?
When I said I don't care what should have been done I mean in the context of this argument and our path forward. Mistakes were made, and now we find ourselves in a situation where we either honor the commitments we made, or make the situation worse by flat out betraying hundreds of thousands of people and abandoning them. History has taught me that the principle failing of liberal democracies is their lack of resolve...we go to war strong and then peter out when the public becomes divided and demonstrates it's lack of backbone.
Whether you like or dislike Bush, he wasn't a draft dodger. He served. Which is more than most people can say. He may have been given a job as a pilot because of who his father is, but he could just as easily have been flying over vietnam. If you don't think it took guts to sign up and train to be a pilot then read a thing or two about what happenned to John McCain when he was shot down and the events that transpired afterwards due to his father being a senator.
If he simply wanted to avoid the war there were plenty of other, less honorable options. However, he stood up and vounteered which is hardly dodging the draft. Not all military jobs are dangerous (most are very safe) and to suggest that soldiers who volunteer to fill a need are somehow 'dodging the draft' is to suggest that everyone who isn't infantry, deployed, and getting shot at is a coward.
Being a pilot took a lot more guts than volunteering to become a cook, or a water purification specialist. Etc. Our Navy was almost unchallenged during Vietnam and would have been far safer than flying. Were all sailors draft dodgers?
What would you do if you were drafted for this Iraq war? Would you go? You believe that American Soldiers are obligated to refuse to participate in this illegal war, and you draw analogies between this one and vietnam, yet you criticize Bush for his service claiming he was 'dodging the draft.' Aren't you basically telling me to do that?
We can't just break the law when we feel like it. That is why we have the UCMJ. We also have JAG oversight and ethics play a large role. However, you can't have a lawyer standing behind every soldier or nothing will ever get done for fear of the consequences if a wrong decision is made. The other side plays brilliantly against our cheif weaknesses...our media and our desire to 'see things their way.'
There is a big difference between the US recorded death toll after our invasion and Saddams reported death toll when he simply made things dissappear and claimed that everything was just peachy.
Oh, and for the record, we had most power and infastructure up and running after the war. It is really amazing how much damage a bunch of bad guys who are willing to kill their own people (or their neighbors since most come from outside Iraq) can do to prevent progress.
You say more than 20,000 have been injured or killed and imply that we are now short more than 20,000 troops as a result. It doesn't work that way. First off, most of the injuries are not career ending...Soldiers heal up and go back. Second, the hurt or wounded are replaced. Units don't remain shorthanded because someone got shot three years ago. The addional 20,000 troops are to augment the current number in Iraq. The current number was decided upon and held constant despite injuries.
And here's what that 20,000 could accomplish: 80 percent of all US Casualties in Iraq occur in Baghdad now. It is a divided city between Sunni and Shia. There are armed insurgents and militia on both sides. Neither side is willing to disarm out of fears of an impending civil war (largely because continued US involvement is uncertain now, thank you). President Malaki talks big, but being Shia really wants to retain the Maudi (spelled wrong, almost positive) army controlled by Al-Sadr and is doing nothing to disarm them. So the Iraqi Police forces in this issue are nearly useless. They won't disarm the poeple in their own neighborhoods and if you sent a bunch of Sunni's to go disarm the Shia or vice versa you would have a bloodbath.
Baghdad is also the nexus for foreign fighters. Not to mention Haifa street, which is all bad. Saddam built haifa and offered it to palestinians and baath loyalists for free...and they have remained loyal.
Our 20,000 troops are supposed to go into baghdad and disarm by force the major militias and warlords. We did not do so previously due to political concerns (we didn't want to dig Al-Sadr out of the mosque he took refuge in) and since moved many soldiers to other hot spots around the country. It is believed that 20,000 will be able to lock baghdad down, strip away the weapons and the ability of the insurgents to fight, remove the foreighn instigators, and restore order to the city. At least for a little while. During that period of respite we should be able to restore and harden the infrastructure in the city and really get the Iraqi police on their feet. After we get baghdad locked down our job should mostly consist of oversight and supporting the Iraqi military and national police and securing the border so more radicals cannot enter the country. Once that is done we can leave.
That's all for now.