Iraqis still ask if U.S. invasion was worth it

[mkemse]

Yes, you're absolutely correct. My apologies to the German people. It was the Nazi leadership which imposed the brutal occupations. And in Eastern Europe, at least, it was primarily SS and Gestapo units which enforced them.

But turning this back to the current situation, as a soldier how do you keep from implementing the leadership's policies if you believe they are faulty? We are seeing military leaders either voluntarily or forcefully resigning over the situation in Iraq. How does the common soldier, who certainly knows more about it than some general sitting in Washington, pull himself out of it? The Wehrmacht couldn't do it in WW2. Our soldiers can't do it now.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am not sure Soldiers have the same options s their Comaders when vocing their opinoin, even if they strongly do not support the WAr, they may feel they need to look andact like they do to avoid a "Dishonorable Discarge" perhaps
Comanders seem to have more flexiblitiy and remarks they make Soldiers do not seem to have that right, or atleast not til they return and know they wil see no further action, but i could be very wrongon this, i would find it very. very difficult to belivethat 100% of all those Figihting aupport the wart, butthey may have limited option and may have even ben advised by the Comanders "If youdo not support the War, kindly keep those feelings private and to yourself" to avoid decsion in the ranks

[Thorne]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am not sure Soldiers have the same options s their Comaders when vocing their opinoin, even if they strongly do not support the WAr, they may feel they need to look andact like they do to avoid a "Dishonorable Discarge" perhaps
Comanders seem to have more flexiblitiy and remarks they make Soldiers do not seem to have that right, or atleast not til they return and know they wil see no further action, but i could be very wrongon this, i would find it very. very difficult to belivethat 100% of all those Figihting aupport the wart, butthey may have limited option and may have even ben advised by the Comanders "If youdo not support the War, kindly keep those feelings private and to yourself" to avoid decsion in the ranks

Yeah, that's my point. The officers, especially general officers, can always resign, if they're not fired. The soldiers who have to do the work, though, are stuck! Agree or disagree, they are there for the duration.

I don't know what you can do about this, though. After all, you can't have a war if the only one's fighting are those who think it's necessary, can you?

Wouldn't that be an interesting sight? GW and Osama facing off together? Rhetoric at 30 paces!

[Thorne]

I've never been in the military, but I've spoken with some who have (Viet Nam) and read accounts by others, from many different wars. Once you come right down to it, very few soldiers are fighting for some nebulous "cause" dreamed up by politicians and generals who are safe behind the lines. They overwhelmingly state that they are fighting for their buddies, the guys next to them in the foxhole, or the tank, or the plane. There sole motivation, besides saving their own lives, is saving the lives of those fighting with them.

Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce is a story I remembered about an occurrence in WW1. Supposedly, this shocked and dismayed the politicians and higher officers who feared it could demoralize troops and bring an early end to hostilities! To me, it points out the problems of the common soldier, forced to fight for a cause which he may or may not believe in, which may or may not make for a better life for him and his family, against other men who feel exactly the same way. And the ones who benefit the most are the one's least likely to be harmed.