It's an everyday event in peaceful, civilian, contemporary life for people to crack under pressure and commit rash, insane acts. Next, consider persons that have been trained for years to kill and sent repeatedly into war zones to apply their training. Some of those poor individuals will crack, too, and when they do, they may reflexively implement that same military education. It's a price that's paid; it goes with the territory, and in warfare, civilians get killed. FACT, FACT, FACT.
It is the height of the ridiculous to suggest that this horrible event is some sort of signal of a "broken military," as I saw one stupid, lifetime non-combatant write. It is also incredible that it should serve as a point of policy-making for the strategy of winning a conflict. Is the Afghan excuse for a president so stupid as to allow that to eliminate a force that can save his country from toppling into the claws of murderous terrorists? Is our excuse for a president fishing for an excuse to turn tail and allow a people to be overrun - as we did to South Vietnam, a war that could have been won in a day with conventional weaponry?
This tragedy illustrates two other salient points.
1. In a couple of days our operose press has discovered 1000 times more about the past of one tragic soldier than it has in years about B.O.'s mysterious past.
2. People that assert correctly that 4 tours of duty to a war zone are too many would surely testify to the stupidity of reducing the size of our forces as a reasonable way to save money.
No comments:
Post a Comment