This doesn't give appropriate attention to the real issues.
Most are not "anti-war"... until we evolve as a species armed combat will be necessary. But only when threatened, however; and this war is clearly, in the minds of a majority of Americans, as yet unwarranted, and requires other confirmation of substance, such as UN/allied support, or some convincing proof of threat. As it is, the exercise looks suspicious.
The easy way out is to paint the argument between the "willing" and the "unwilling" to fight. That would be a major error. If the gov't considers dissidents unwilling to fight for country, they should just try to formally abandon Posse Comitatus and take over some of the countryside, and watch the revolution.
In case you missed it, some of the JCS have argued against the Iraq policy, and were told by Bush that they commit "treason" (his words) if they oppose official policy. An interesting idea, and certainly its within the chain of command to do many things, but this is not one of them, and indicative of major disagreements, I would venture to say for significant rather than insignificant reasons. And there are many other generals who oppose this rash action, would you call them "anti-American" or otherwise impugn their courage?
It's an issue of facts, and to my mind name-calling is an easy way out for the timid, or those who have made up their minds and want no facts to confuse themselves.
BTW, thanks for your preparedness booklet... Let's hope the preparations are never needed |
