If you are grateful for the sacrifices of service members and their families, then you (general "you") should temper your rhetoric with the knowledge that when you debate war the way you would argue with a buddy over which brand of weed wacker cuts the grass shorter, you are not talking about a machine. You are discussing the lives (and the deaths) of actual people.

Each service member who dies is the cherished loved one of someone. Each service member who dies is disposable to the military, but irreplaceable to his or her family.

These are things you should think about when you speak. Respect should not be lip service, but should be reflected through reverent speech.

Each service member who dies is the cherished loved one of someone. Each service member who dies is disposable to the military, but irreplaceable to his or her family.

That is priceless and very well said Tex.

Have a cookie.

Texas Wahini,

While each serviceman is important to his family, it doesnt change a thing about how it must be approached.

Our political and military leaders have the unenviable task of having to make decisions which frequently mean someone has to die. They know this. What they do not need is someone who could never make that decision second guessing them without even the barest information. This applies to both those who support the war and those who dont.

I am not saying we should get rid of civilian oversight of the military by any means. What i am saying is, when we send them out to do a job, you support the men and women on the ground - and their leaders - by not stupidly criticizing their decisions.

We lost in Vietnam because too many people insisted upon focusing upon the losses instead of the gains. If you think that doing the same thing in Iraq is going to yield different results, you're nuts .

I ashamed that my article prompted you to comment against irreverent speech about soldiers who die in war.

Who speaks reverently of the war dead, Tex? Tell me, and I will study them and learn proper reverence from them.

Eric:

Texas Wahini,

Nitpicking, but is it possible for you to spell it right?

I am not saying we should get rid of civilian oversight of the military by any means. What i am saying is, when we send them out to do a job, you support the men and women on the ground - and their leaders - by not stupidly criticizing their decisions.

What does "stupidly criticizing their decisions" have to do with my comment?

Stute:

I ashamed that my article prompted you to comment against irreverent speech about soldiers who die in war.

Hmmm...what is your preferred response to this blog?

Who speaks reverently of the war dead, Tex? Tell me, and I will study them and learn proper reverence from them.

There's a long list of people on this site alone. Try chiprj's most recent blog and go from there.

Tova:

That is priceless and very well said Tex. Have a cookie.

Thank you very much.

That's the thing isn't it. Decisions are made both in whether or not to go to war and they are made once the war has started. With every decision, lives hang in the balance. Do I route the convoy in the early hours of the day, at midinight, or in the evening? Do I set up my antennas here... or there? When I take my section out on patrol, where are the most likely points of ambush? The decisions only get bigger with the rank and position of the decision maker. Each decision can save lives, each decision can cost lives.... but the decisions must be made, and they aren't always made by someone with experience to back them up.

When my team went into Iraq, we were fortunate enough to have a Sergeant Major with combat experience. Out of the Commissioned Officers and NCOs, he was the only one. Out of all the troops, NCOs and Officers we left behind in Log Base Charlie, there were only a handful. That meant that most of our orders we were carrying out were made by someone with no combat experience.

It is a humbling yet strangely intoxicating experience, knowing that your decisions can mean lives. Knowing that mistakes cost lives... wishing that death only occured as a result of a mistake. Just as there are people who talk about this war as if troops were expendable, there are leaders who see it the same way. The good ones never do... they also try not to let their feelings toward the troops being but in harm's way prevent them from making the hard choices. They also have to live with the outcome... if they survive themselves.

What we don't think about is, each of us do the same things on an almost daily basis. We hop in the car, weave in and out of traffic; talk on our cell phones, eat, check our make up, day planner, or pager. We make choices that someone, somewhere else will kill a person while doing. Statistically speaking, today 125 people will be killed in Motor Vehicle Accidents in the US alone. Today 10 people were killed in a suicide bombing in Bangledesh. Today 4 Peace Activists are being held hostage by the bacteria in Iraq. Today you, I, or one of any other JU regulars could die.

Each with a family and friends who will mourn their deaths, many will be left wondering why... wondering how they will ever be able to get on with their lives after their tragic loss.

No, troops are not expendable to their families, their friends, their buddies, their NCOs or their Officers. However, choices have to be made when the consequences of not making the decision become more life threatening then making it... and even when the choice was merely out of convenience or habit.

I didn't take offense by your article here. Your words probably could have been a little more carefully chosen, but I understood what you meant... I also understand why some were bothered by them. The rhetoric (pro or anti) surrounding war should never become the focus of the discussion. Before the war starts, the focus should be about "should we or shouldn't we", but if the decision is a "GO", then the focus should be on the most effective way to deny the enemy the ability to continue the fight (within the established ethics of warfare). The lives of the men and woman who will be carrying out the orders should always weigh heavy on the decision and policy maker's minds; but in the end aren't what makes the difference in the final order.

Our mission was to study enemy cultures and values, and devise reasons and arguments to demoralize them and end the conflict with minimal casualties by encouraging the enemy to surrender rather than give battle.

It is truly sad that as we speak, many in positions of power are arguing that the entire Psyops mission is a form of torture.

We lost in Vietnam because too many people insisted upon focusing upon the losses instead of the gains. If you think that doing the same thing in Iraq is going to yield different results, you're nuts .

It's pretty hard to see the gain in face of 58,000 deaths.

I know why the Army is a hierarchical organization, that doesn't waste time justifying every order to every private. True, but on the front it would be nice to know that the hierarchy at least knows what it's doing.

It's pretty hard to see the gain in face of 58,000 deaths.

Yet we are more than willing to see the gains in the face of millions of deaths in WWII.

gains in the face of millions of deaths in WWII.

Apples and Oranges.

oh yeah, I forgot, war isn't comparable to... um... war.

It's kind of hard to see the gains when they're being obfuscated by the media, you mean.

The Tet Offensive was a resounding defeat for the Viet Cong. It was reported as a victory for the VC by the American press.

At that point, the American people lost their stomach for it, and the politicians responded accordingly.

I forgot, war isn't comparable to... um... war.

WWII was an urgent matter of global survival, not of one insignificant country's internal war.

It was reported as a victory for the VC by the American press.

The Tet offensive failed to achieve all of its objectives. No widespread uprising of the population occurred in South Vietnam. In addition, the United States and South Vietnam quickly recovered their early losses, and the enemy suffered a huge number of casualties. But the Tet attacks stunned the American people and demoralized them. Shortly before the offensive, Westmoreland, had assured the nation that the enemy had already been beaten.