Dying stateside of natural causes while an older member of the military is a bit less dangerous than taking a roadside bomb up the ass in an active combat arena.
But of more interest for many of us who have kids - as I do that are aged 23 and 21 - it's worth reviewing if the exposure to death and injury will be in the cause of honestly protecting American lives and property or if instead it will be while engaged in mercenary work in a foreign country while wearing US military gear - as has been the case for the over 4000 and nearing 5000+ American lives lost during the past eight years in Middle East combat arenas.
Mercenary work is, I suppose, as honorable a profession as many others. But when recruiters for the mercenary industry disguise their product as "protecting and serving the red white and blue" (cue Sousa music here), it's good business for those of us with a bit more life experience to be sure that our young people have the full packet of information before they - of their own free will - choose to sign on.
I would call blackwater and it's ilk mercenaries. While we may not agree with the war, I wouldn't call my USMC friends in 'sthan "mercenaries," especially since they're RECON/STA and have taken down important splats.
Sadly, 7 of them have fallen in the last year and a half.
NEVER FORGOTTEN
Sadly, 7 of them have fallen in the last year and a half.
NEVER FORGOTTEN
Im not going to argue with anybody from a military background about the war. I realize you have friends and family and maybe urself who have been there and i honor them all. I have family who have been there as well , that does not color my opinons on this topic..
All i will add to your criticisim of my posts is that the Soviets were there for a very long time, they lost a lot of men and spent billions of dollars. They took no regard whatsoever for civilian deaths and and still were soundly defeated.
I have read more than 1 book by some of the russian generals, etc and each and every 1 of them conclude a war cannot be won there without weapons of total destruction...
All i will add to your criticisim of my posts is that the Soviets were there for a very long time, they lost a lot of men and spent billions of dollars. They took no regard whatsoever for civilian deaths and and still were soundly defeated.
I have read more than 1 book by some of the russian generals, etc and each and every 1 of them conclude a war cannot be won there without weapons of total destruction...
Respectfully, when your friends - and their fellow soldiers - are employed in work that does not involve the protection of US homeland, they're doing mercenary work.
As I noted in my last post, there's nothing dishonorable about that profession.
It should, however be viewed as distinct from the work done by US soldiers engaged in defending our nation against invaders and against countries which declare war against us.
My bratiya pa ryzha are a little different than most of the boys over in 'shtan. They were total black until a few months ago when the MDR acknowledged the existence of MSOTs (more than that OPSEC prevents me from saying). They're not part of the "nation building" or whatever bullshit they're calling it now. Their Ops are actually important to our security.
Our beliefs about the war aren't too much different. We ignored the terrorists for too long by going after Eye Wrack, and failed to capitalize on our early "success."
Comparison to the Soviets isn't exactly valid, but no one ever "wins" in 'sthan. From the Mongols on down. We need to actually control more territory (we're just now trying to root the splats out of the HRV), accomplish what few actionable goals we have there, make a deal and leave. The E9 has been there over 7 years now, for God's sake.
"There is no instance of a nation benefiting from a prolonged state of war."
Our beliefs about the war aren't too much different. We ignored the terrorists for too long by going after Eye Wrack, and failed to capitalize on our early "success."
Comparison to the Soviets isn't exactly valid, but no one ever "wins" in 'sthan. From the Mongols on down. We need to actually control more territory (we're just now trying to root the splats out of the HRV), accomplish what few actionable goals we have there, make a deal and leave. The E9 has been there over 7 years now, for God's sake.
"There is no instance of a nation benefiting from a prolonged state of war."
That fool Bush could have has over 300,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, instead there's only 62,000 there. Obama better get smart. Nobody has ever won there and the US will not either. BTW, the war's not won after 8 years, what's going on?
If i were President, 90 days from now every US soldier would be out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
If i were President, 90 days from now every US soldier would be out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
