diogenes- I knew where you were going with your comment and don’t think that you ran afoul- pointing out the positive aspects of our military should be done more and more loudly so that people understand that in the wake of destruction, we often try to put things back in place…we don’t always succeed, but we try.

As for Iraq- I am of the same mind as you with regards to approving of our actions in theory- we still should have done a better planning job and made an effort to decrease the length of hostilities. But the Iraqi people’s willingness to embrace political reform and to finally begin to stand up to the insurgents in their midst shows that standing up to tyranny can have positive consequences…not perfect consequences, but positive nonetheless.

I assume that we agree that war is sometimes necessary but it would be nice to know that we were hearing the truth instead of propaganda about that. Frankly, if the mission in Iraq had been described as a humanitarian effort to oust a despicable tyrant and nothing more, I would still have supported it. It is in fact all I ever saw it as (I tend to take any assertions as to imminent threat as so much bilge water anyway). Great posts, btw.

Thanks for bringing up an important aspect of military activities. Of course everything you mention regarding the other tasks undertaken by our military personnel are on target, and it should never go unmentioned.

But the point that I am trying to make in this series of posts is that we should be doing those kinds of things and providing that expertise long before war becomes the only option. If we expended as much energy on fostering and assisting nations towards free societies as we do on subterfuge and less than honest “alliances” perhaps our need to wield our big stick would become less necessary. That would allow these same people to use their expertise and humanitarian leanings without fearing for their lives.

Thanks for dropping by again.

This is not just an issue of semantics. I’m not referring to the terminology bandied about that our army is a “peacekeeping” force. That is perceived by most people simply to mean that keeping the peace sometimes requires fighting a war. I am talking about the incredible and varied things that are done by our armed forces in a forward area.

When we send “troops” in, they are hardly a homogeneous group. Their respective missions are not limited to hostile engagement or even “keeping the peace” in a military sense. We send psychological specialists, construction crews, administrative support personnel, medical staff, advisors (not just military analysts), engineers – the list goes on.

In the vein of your comment that the public is often poorly informed, I think it’s important to remember that many of the people that we send into a region truly are there to support and rebuild. Many of them are reservists who offer their civilian expertise to the military in the cause of aid to affected regions.

This is not to contradict any of your message – only to say that we do a disservice to the men and women who serve in our armed forces when we overlook their commitment to all aspects of peacekeeping in the world (and their willingness to interrupt their lives in the effort).

Iraq is not the only place in the world where armed services personnel are stationed and not the only location where reservists and national guardsmen are deployed. And what we are doing in Iraq is scarcely adequately described as a hostile engagement. Even the “peacekeeping” forces actually do spend most of their time safeguarding the area, not wreaking havoc upon it (i.e. keeping the peace). Those who are there in other capacities also make a commitment, endure hardship, and brave similar risks to do their jobs.

All of the people who serve in our armed forces have one ultimate mission – to build peace from the ruins of war. They are our most visible ambassadors. We should remember all that they do for us and the world.

Glad I could churn to brain cells for you. It’s what I aim for.
You are right, of course, about our isolationism policies of the past. My point was with regards to the public coming on board in the face of an actual threat to democracy, wher they are much less liekly to do so for the threat to others.
As for the informatin angle, my lastest post talks about that very thing.

I am not a fan of this war but I have to ask the question, “Will history prove the protestors wrong?”

There is a lot of information not released to the public and the world is so complex that it is very difficult to understand or see “the whole picture”. That’s what our leaders are paid to do.

We might digest a ton of information and think we have an understanding of what’s going on but if one little piece of info is missing, that alone, could change your opinion.

For example, I often wonder why Russia did not retaliate militarily after their “9/11”. I thought for sure you were going to see scenes of takes rolling through cities but it didn’t happen, why? They must know something I don’t that’s why.

Again, I’m not always for this war but sometimes you have to wonder if history would prove me wrong?

Ken, thanks for making me think today. I thought it wasn’t going to happen, it being Saturday and all, but it did and it feels good. I’m going back into my weekend coma now!

Windspike- I’ve read your posts and they provide good thought fodder. We must continue to ask these questions of ourselves and of others.
Truth and perception may not be as inseparable as we would like. What is perceived is often more powerful than any truth which is why we must be more honest in what we do so that the perception and the truth are more in synch.

Scott-Thanks for dropping by. I agree that our selection process may be somewhat askew. If bringing democracy is our goal or fighting despotism is our goal, where do we start? Saddam was a bad guy and his country was an easy military target and many Iraqi’s support his demise…but they still should have gotten a better planned salvation.

Ottman- Agreed that the UN is a failing bureaucracy, but the premises that it was built upon are still valid. If not for the corruption seemingly inherent in politicians of all countries, there could have been a better chance for success. But just because the cake went flat doesn’t mean you toss out the recipe. You just have to try and make another cake…

Sure, the US has made the world a better place for many millions…but we have also advanced policies that held many millions down. The dichotomy is perplexing to our allies and is fodder for our enemies.

As for us not starting a war except when no other choice is left, that is not always the case. How many times have we interjected military solutions onto other nations instead of trying to use our formidable power to create a negotiated settlement that makes sense for the people in conflict instead of one that suits only us? We’ve elevated many a battle that might not have been. And our blind policies have sometimes created the very enemies we hope to vanquish…

Diplomacy is not a crutch for the “liberal” any more than Agression is the tool of the “conservative.” These labels mean nothing.

Levya- And that is the reason why war should be avoided. But if we must stand and fight, we should go forth with gusto, to minimize needless fatalities created by lengthy wars. Thanks for making a note.

SheaNC- I don’t think our lack of success in those areas are due to our force capability as much as to the politicians driving the show. It is indecisive or incompetance that makes war draw on too long. Our mechanics are top notch, as is shown when used with determination. They aren’t perfect at all, but they are the best on earth.

Begalke- Stop by again sometime.

I found you on blog expolision….

Begalke