This is a nice paragraph on how the professional warriors I associate with feel - via MG (Ret) Robert Scales, an artilleryman of some repute:
They are tired of wannabe soldiers who remain enamored of the lure of bloodless machine warfare. “Look,” one told me, “if you want to end this decisively, send in the troops and let them defeat the Syrian army. If the nation doesn’t think Syria is worth serious commitment, then leave them alone.”
They are embarrassed to be associated with the amateurism of the Obama administration’s attempts to craft a plan that makes strategic sense. None of the White House staff has any experience in war or understands it. So far, at least, this path to war violates every principle of war, including the element of surprise, achieving mass and having a clearly defined and obtainable objective."
We'll do what we're told, and do our best to do it in a way to protect the innocents at risk. But this is amateur hour, and killing people, even people we don't like, because we have to be seen to be "doing something" but where we aren't willing to go all in, is on the wrong side of immoral. Consider this - if it isn't worth risking US military lives (and clearly, the administration does not believe it is) then how can it be worth killing others?
I don't mean that you don't endeavor to fight a war where your side doesn't get hurt - as one who used to be one of those pawns, I'm all for that - but I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea of killing people *as long as we don't get hurt ourselves*. I.e, it's worth killing those people over there I don't like, but it's not worth the risk of getting hurt. Sorry. Doesn't pass my smell test.
A war the Pentagon doesn’t want. By Robert H. Scales
Read the complete post at http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2013/09/on_syria.html
Posted
Sep 07 2013, 07:48 AM
by
Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys..