Young officers question Iraq war.
By on Oct 13th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Young officers question Iraq war.
At Fort Leavenworth, KS — the “intellectual center of the United States Army” — young officers are undergoing an “outspoken re-examination of their role in Iraq.” The officers have examined, for example, whether more active four-star generals should have spoken out and whether Donald Rumsfeld bears responsibility for the war’s mistakes. The New York Times reports:
One question that silenced many of the officers was a simple one: Should the war have been fought?
“I honestly don’t know how I feel about that,” Major Powell said in a telephone conversation after the discussions at Leavenworth.
“That’s a big, open question,” General Caldwell said after a long pause.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
“That’s a duh, sir.”
October 13th, 2007 at 5:18 pmThe American People
Those are questions that are NOT to be asked by the military. Those are civilian issues determined by the POTUS.
The military credo is “Are’s is not to wonder why, are’s is but to do or die.”
Many wars / battles are to be fought as part of a larger context, and not based solely on the ease or success of the outcome.
October 13th, 2007 at 5:32 pmOne question that silenced many of the officers was a simple one: Should the war have been fought?
They all know that the answer to that question is a resounding not NO but HELL NO. But, since they are still active duty, there is no way they are going to say that if they want to stay in the military. For many of these guys the military is their life. I’m betting these officers are also counting the days until the insane person who is sitting in the White House is gone and sanity is brought back into the military.
What I don’t understand are people like Betrayus. He has to know that the Republicans are NOT going to be in power in 2009. So he has to also know that his military career will be at an end when the Democrats take charge. So the only conclusion I can come to is that Betrayus is no longer interested in a military career and is now interested in a political career. But that doesn’t explain why he hitched his star to Bush. With 70% of Americans against Betrayus’ war and against Bush, where does he think the people will come from to vote for him? On the other hand, the Republicans probably guaranteed him a lucrative “think tank” job when his career is over.
October 13th, 2007 at 5:36 pmWho bears responsibility?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGIe1gPaTXY
October 13th, 2007 at 5:36 pmShould the war have been fought?
No. Simple as that. Despite what the Bush administration told the American people and Congress, Iraq was never the threat to us that they made us believe they were. And they knew it all along. Lying to have their way has been a policy of theirs from the very beginning. There is absolutely no foundation upon which to give them the benefit of the doubt. If there is any doubt, assume they are deceiving you. The war in Iraq should not have been fought.
October 13th, 2007 at 5:37 pmMore “Phony” soldiers for Melanie Morgan, Rush Limpbaghs et al. to crap all over.
October 13th, 2007 at 5:44 pmShould the war have been fought? In other words, should the US have illegally invaded a sovereign nation? Absolutely NOT. These poor solders, I mean poor, took an oath to protect our nation. It’s too bad that they are forced to serve under a civilian sociopath.
Renewable energy = sustainable peace.
signing off: coffins draped with flags.
October 13th, 2007 at 5:50 pmAfter so many Generals sucked up to the lie and even Secretary of State Powell lied to the UN and the American people now it takes a soldier to ask the question that Generals should have asked in the first place. We lost 3800 soldiers who would have liked to know that answer now it’s to late. We have thousands of soldiers injured for life and those with mental problems who would have liked their Generals to have looked out for their interest not the White House greed for oil. Sanchez got paid and got some of Saddam’s stolen money now he’s all about the truth. He sucked up to Rummy like a lap dog and let soldiers go to jail for orders the White House gave. Petraeus is the new suck up and doing a helluva job at it. Our soldiers need Military Leaders that will protect them first not after they get kicked out after the White House has used them.
October 13th, 2007 at 5:50 pmAt this rate, the entire GOP except for Chuck Hagel & Dick Lugar will be in jail, so we won’t have anything to worry about.
Another GOP pedophile busted in Wisconsin
Really, they need normal hobbies.
October 13th, 2007 at 5:56 pmThinks are getting uglier and uglier for Bush and his blind supporters. The only question remaining about Bush’s legacy is just how grim and pathetic it will be. As for Bush’s delusion about a lucrative speaking career, forget about it. His invitations will be few and far between, and the money offered will be low by historical standards. I am curious what role he will play at the convention. Any? Will the Republicans try to hide him? Give him 5 minutes during a dead spot when viewers aren’t watching?
Whatever Petreaus is thinking, he’ll be toast when Bush leaves office.
October 13th, 2007 at 6:00 pmThroughout the history of this Country we have engaged in a number of “wars.” Most, if not all, of those wars, up to and including World War Two and possibly Korea, were considered honorable in that they were conducted to answer a legitimate treat to this Country or allied Countries and had the approval of the general public, i. e. the voters. The last two major conflicts (VietNam, and Iraq) and many of the lesser skirmishes, to an increasing degree, were the results of political manipulation solely for the benefit of the politicians of the Republican party. These actions cannot be considered “wars” in terms of the patriotic causes of the true wars in this Nation’s history. They are truly criminal acts by political power grabbers with no patriotism nor concern for this Country as it was founded. The young soldiers should not be required to answer the question. There should not be cause to ask the question. The greedy perpetrators of the act of treason popularly called the “Iraq War” by the Republican Bush sycophants should be those housed at Fort Leavenworth. Those betrayers of our County should be the ones answering the questions put to them by the young officers.
October 13th, 2007 at 6:02 pmThat’s about like asking, “Should the Supreme Court have given Bush the Presidency?” Hell, they’ve cried over it, but it can’t be taken back. The damage is done and can’t be undone. All we can do now is move on and hopefully learn something from it.
October 13th, 2007 at 6:20 pmWith 70% of Americans against Betrayus’ war and against Bush, where does he think the people will come from to vote for him? On the other hand, the Republicans probably guaranteed him a lucrative “think tank†job when his career is over.
Comment by bilbobaggins — October 13, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
I would caution us from calling this Petraeus’s war. He’s one general, of several, who have been the top commander on the ground. Blaming him for the war, however, is precisely what Bush would like…and no doubt, why Petraeus was selected to deliver Bush/Cheney’s message to Congress. THIS IS BUSH AND CHENEY’S WAR. They are the ones who made the ultimate decision to invade Iraq. The others are accomplices, nothing more and nothing less.
October 13th, 2007 at 6:31 pmTheir oath is to first protect and defend the Constitution, regardless of rank – enlisted or officer.
I find those like Sanchez, who now comes out saying this shit stinks, as not the most honorable of soldiers. It’s your duty to stand up.
October 13th, 2007 at 6:50 pmWhat they teach in the war colleges to our erstwhile military leaders is that the civilian National Command Authority sets the policy and the military marches forward (while speaking truth to power in the private councils). To oppose the NCA, the only “honorable” thing is to resign and, for most careerists, that is a very big step. Leaders with the corage and scruples like General John Batiste are rara avis and should be held in the highest esteem.
October 13th, 2007 at 7:07 pmTo oppose the NCA, the only “honorable†thing is to resign and, for most careerists, that is a very big step.
Comment by Doc Rock — October 13, 2007 @ 7:07 pm
Whilst what you are saying may be true, we can’t afford to have the good ones resigning on principle. That will only leave the hardcore whackjobs to do the job… and we will be carpet bombing the entire ME back into the Stone Age in no time flat.
October 13th, 2007 at 7:09 pmBlaming him for the war, however, is precisely what Bush would like…
Just another scapegoat for the spoiled rotten, stupid, boy bush. Bush and Cheney have no intentions on taking responsibility for their actions. That’s why Rove quit and that’s why Gonzales quit. They knew that they would be left holding the bag and once again, the boy bush, rides into the sunset without a scratch.
Whatever happened to the “war czar”?
October 13th, 2007 at 7:43 pmThat question is very deceiving in that its companion question was not also asked, which is “Should the country of Iraq continue to be occupied by the United States?” If Fort Levenworth is supposed to be the “intellectual center of the United States Army”, it would be then difficult to conceive that these alleged military intellectuals are not aware of the GI Movement that took place at or near military bases both at home and abroad during something called, in this country, the Vietnam War. It is way past the point that these young officers recognize that they have a brain and that, as the UCMJ states, they have not only a right but a duty and an obligation NOT to obey illegal orders. Since these officers seem to need guidance, it would be advisable for them to do research concerning a lieutenant named Ehren Watada, who has courageously stated that he is not going to deploy to Iraq because he recognizes that to do so would mean contributing to the occupation of Iraq and would therefore mean that he would be a party to war crimes which have been committed in that occupied country. Again, the best way to stop a war/occupation is to have it happen from within. If these officers need proof of this, then they need to rent or buy the documentary Sir! No Sir! [which chronicled the GI Resistance during the Vietnam War] for confirmation of this obvious truth.
October 13th, 2007 at 7:56 pmI’d like to see an old fashioned war game played between the ‘phony soldiers’ and the reichwing pundits.
No rules, just hand to hand combat.
On one side battle hardened officers, NCOs and enlisted men and women, on the other side, soft chickenshits like Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Malkin, Jonah (no gonads) Goldman, or Goldfarb, or whatever the hell his name is.
I’d sell tickets and get rich quick.
October 13th, 2007 at 10:11 pmI don’t know what goes on in officer’s training school, but Am I safe to say that ‘questioning authority’ isn’t emphasized?
October 13th, 2007 at 11:01 pm“I’d sell tickets and get rich quick.”
Comment by RUCerious
Good thought but you would get richer quicker if you bought those soft chicken….s for what they are worth and sold them for what they think they are worth. Throw in the rest of the bushco and you could pay off the National debt yourself before we get a respectable government. If such a thing is possible.
October 13th, 2007 at 11:02 pmThink of the position these generals are in. Speaking out seems to be a quick career ender as we’ve seen. They have to basically choose between their family and honor. What a crappy position to be in.
These are men and women, not saints. We can all say that we’d choose to do what’s right, but that’s easy if you’re not the one about to give up your livelihood.
It’s good to see more and more officers speaking out, and it appears that maybe the current climate is changing. It’s just too bad that it didn’t happen before Bush&Co drove us into this quagmire.
October 13th, 2007 at 11:15 pmIt’s not that they are in this rank and position,anyone with more than one or two brain cells working and connected knows right from wrong / lies from truth.
October 13th, 2007 at 11:42 pmFor most the toxic waste has reached their eye balls.
#18-TRDaggett
You raise a very good point. It is rather doubtful if the subject of “questioning authority” is raised in OTS. But as Lt. Watada correctly noted in the speech that he gave at the Veterans for Peace in 2006 in Seattle, “The American soldier must rise above the socialization that tells them authority should always be obeyed. Rank should be respected but never blindly followed.”
This brings to mind what the case of Navy Nurse Lt. Susan Schnall. In the documentary Sir! No Sir! she explains that if General William Westmoreland could wear his uniform to promote war then she could wear her uniform at an anti-war rally during the Vietnam War to promote peace. She did and was court-martialed for what she did but she, justifiably, expressed no regrets for what she did. It is instructive to remember that former Green Beret Duncan Duncan said in the film that it is important to question the mission. He also said that “I was doing it right but I wasn’t doing right.”
As Watada said at the VFP convention:
“The oath we take swears allegiance not to one man but to a document of principles and laws designed to protect the people. Enlisting in the military does not relinquish one’s right to seek the truth-neither does it excuse one from rational thought nor the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. ‘I was only following orders’ is never an excuse.”
It is important to recall that German officials and soldiers tried to hide behind that justification after World War II at the Nuremberg Trials. The judges did not buy into their rationale and hanged them for their crimes. It cannot be stressed too strongly that what is going on in Iraq are war crimes which therefore makes every one of those soldiers who are serving in Iraq culpable of being tried as war criminals. As a soldier said to other soldiers in Sir! No Sir!, do not think that because you may be a Clerk Typist in a war zone that that somehow gets you off the hook. Being part of the military during a time of war means that one is part of the group that is engaged in suppressing and occupying and killing unjustifiably another group of people. Thankfully there are people such as Lt. Watada and others in the IVAW [Iraq Veterans Against the War] who are saying that they will not be a party to those actions and have courageously taken a stand against the war machine. These are the true heroes of this country and deserve the highest respect but yet, inexplicably, most of the liberal blogs have mysteriously withheld praising these military personnel for their actions. Again-the best way to stop the war/occupation is to have it happen from within.
October 13th, 2007 at 11:53 pmThere is no moral or ethical justification for invading and occupying Iraq. It was a heinous and unconscionable act of a deeply flawed human being.
George W. Bush personifies the most malevolent, irredeemable and unholy aspects of mankind. Not only is he purposefully dishonest, destructive and shamelessly unremorseful, he defends his wantonly evil actions by hiding and perpetuating the permanent cataclysmic impact they have on the lives of innocent and defenseless human beings. Hundreds of thousands of guiltless children, women and men, who never harbored a harmful thought toward another human being, have been murdered and maimed as a direct result of George W. Bush being the president of the United States of America. And yet his overriding priority is to exacerbate and perpetuate the inhuman carnage he created, not end it. George W. Bush is an indelible example of what man is capable of doing to his fellow man……the worst example possible.
These young officers followed orders in good faith and conscience, and in so doing they unintenionally facilitated the atrocities of a megalomaniacal sociopath. Their humanity requires they ask themselves if their deadly actions and sacrifices were necessary and or beneficial to Iraqi and or American citizens……or were their actions destructive and were they just the unknowing pawns of an exploitive evil man?
October 14th, 2007 at 9:53 amI have to give Carlisle Barracks kudos for being forward thinking enough in their “lessons learned” about this illegal war to include classroom time to discuss the morality and ethics of it. This is a positive step in hopefully instilling in younger officers the importance of questioning whether or not any given “war” is, in fact, a legal war and one that has validity to it. At least someone in the “halls of power” is paying attention to the implications of rash actions and lack of forethought into something as serious as commiting our nation’s resources and children into a war situation.
October 14th, 2007 at 11:39 pmIt’s time for military officers to stop pussyfooting and do their goddamn jobs. We as officers own a public trust by holding a federal commission. Our job is to ensure the wise and fruitful use of the American people’s resources in the effort to protect and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. The war in Iraq was a mistake and has made us LESS safe. End of discussion. It was an operational, strategic, and tactical mistake, and possibly the largest mistake in US history. You don’t need to be out of uniform to say that if you are doing it and think it is in the best interest of the public trust you own by merit of your federal commission. That’s why I, as a military officer, am not afraid to speak out publicly at every chance to tell the American people that their resources are being squandered away on a war that is not fulfilling the mission of the US military.
CPT Marcus Byrne
October 15th, 2007 at 9:03 pmThis is getting so bad that they are now, for the first time in US military history, having to bribe officers of my age and grade to stay in because we won’t stay around for multiple 15 month deployments. But I will stay and fulfill the obligation I made and do so following the orders of the President of United States as I affirmed to do. But I will do it without fear of prosecution, doing what I think is right for the men and women I lead, and what is best for the public trust I have inherited by virtue of my commission.
October 15th, 2007 at 9:08 pm