Mixed Emotions on Memorial Day 2011

[fullautovalmet76]

This weekend I had conflicting emotions about Memorial Day. I go from great respect and pride for our troops in the sacrifice they made and make for this country to anger, disillusionment, and cynicism toward our elected leaders who either created or influenced the events which causes us to remember Memorial Day.

For WWII and Korea, that seems real easy to justify in my mind. Though I don't know why Korea is so easy, since it was a UN police action, like Bosnia, but that's the way it is for me. It's when I think about Vietnam and the last two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) in particular I think to myself, 'WTF! Why are we spilling one ounce of American blood for these people?' I was all for the so called "War on Terror" when this all began, but over the years I have come to see these actions as nothing but a perpetuation of the military-industrial complex Eisenhower spoke about over 50 years ago. I think to myself one day this nation will have to fess up and admit to these brave men and women our government f'ed up in sending them over there. The anger and disgust that will be felt from them will be horrible...and justified.

My neighbor who lives across the street from me fought in Iraq II (Marines) and he is either a Bronze Star or Silver Star recipient, IIRC. His wife is also a veteran. He was with the Marines at Nasiriyah and has told me some stories about his time there. I told him a little about my quandry and he told me he hears the same all the time. I told him I appreciated his and his wife's service and though I disagreed with the decision to put them there I am proud they served and did so with honor.

I guess that's where I have to leave it.....Sometimes life just isn't all neat and tidy, is it?

[fightingquaker13]

It would have saved this country a whole lot of grief if the anti-war folks in Vietnam had been as insightful as you fullauto. Imagine how much grief we could have saved if they'd marched with signs saying "Support the Troops, End the War", or "Save a Marine Impeach Johnson" and met the soldiers at the airports with hugs and flowers. I think you have the right idea. We need to ask ourselves what in country X is worth a dead soldier BEFORE we go in.
FQ13 who would argue that in 1950 there was bugger all in Korea worth fighting for either.

[tombogan03884]

What we really need to ask before committing troops is "What EXACTLY are we trying to achieve ? Can it be done more effectively, and less expensively by a couple guys with a big rifle ?"
In Afghanistan we have no clue what we are trying to accomplish, the stated mission of toppling the Taliban and killing terrorists was completed in 90 days, yet we are still there after 10 years.
As a Cold War Veteran I feel my service was wasted. We were focused on the Fulda Gap when we should have been securing Berkley and the Beltway

[twyacht]

I agree with Tom, but carry it one step further. WWI, WWII, were clear objectives....with leadership, regardless of political party that supported it.

Korea and Vietnam, Bosnia, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, were the "wars of best intentions".

Since Europe/ UN was, and still is impotent,....even Clinton took a shot at Saddam, and back than, led airstrikes into Bosnia...."ethnic cleansing" is something America finds disturbing, unless it's Darfur, or some African country wit nothing else to offer the world.. or Somalia, where not enough ass kicking was brought.. Milosavich died in jail after a useless multi-million dollar, multi year "international" trial. When a firing squad would have saved countless time and money.

After 9/11 we were going to kick somebodies ass. We wasted precious time not doing it because we wanted UN approval, the "sanctions" to work, etc,.....blah,..blah,...coalition building,....

Regardless. The Armed Services of this country went. EVERYTIME. Good or bad, right or wrong. They went and did their duty, with what they had, and thanks to some POTUS, or rules of engagement, International/UN/NATO,.......B.S......we have what we have today.

We can no longer fight like Sherman, Patton, or Pershing,....The military has to be used to break, kill and blow up stuff. This "nation building" gets us into a quagmire.

I agree Berkley should have been locked down for internment years ago,.....

[tombogan03884]

WWI and WWII were pointless as well, with the exception of the Jap attack on Pearl HarborWe had no valid reason for fighting Germany except that  communist POS FDR wanted to. And Japan would not have attacked the US if FDR had not cut off their oil supply.
The last" just" foreign war America engaged in was 1812 .

[Sponsor]

[kmitch200]

WWI and WWII were pointless as well, with the exception of the Jap attack on Pearl HarborWe had no valid reason for fighting Germany except that  communist POS FDR wanted to. And Japan would not have attacked the US if FDR had not cut off their oil supply.
The last" just" foreign war America engaged in was 1812 .

I would say that stopping Germany from controlling all of Europe twice in one century was an OK reason.
I'm sure the 6 million jews and 20 million Russians killed would agree if they could.

Japan would have attacked Hawaii anyway.
It was needed to control the Pacific and was played out in numerous war games by other countries than Japan, i.e., Great Britain.

Internationally you need trade and resources.
Both of which would have been hindered severely if Germany and Japan would have controlled half the planet. Our tech industries today would not exist if resources from around the globe were not available.

[fightingquaker13]

Kmitch is right. There is difference between being a contrarian and being a crank. The Mexian war wasn't a bad deal either. Ethically it was inexcusable, but it was most definately in the national interest. I would agree with you about WWI and the rest of our "humanitarian" efforts though.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

Clausewitz defined 2 types of war, "just" war is when you are fighting to defend yourself and your country, As we did in 1812, this can be used to justify helping an invaded ally, which would make Korea and Gulf war one "just" wars as well since we stood to gain nothing beyond helping a friend.
His 2nd type of war is the "unjust" war, which he defined as any war where there is no direct threat to your country or people. These are fought for political or economic gain, like the Mexican war, the Spanish American war, and the "Banana wars".
I use the terms "just", and "unjust" in this sense, without intending a moral judgement.
About my comments regarding WWII, I will grant that war between the US and Japan was inevitable, as was the outcome. The war, and even Japan's opening tactics, (Surprise Sunday morning attack on PH ) were discussed in US Navy circles as early as 1900.  Alfred Thayer Mahon used this in his classic study on the future of sea power.
On the other side of the world however, since Germany was perfectly happy to do business with us in '33- '41 there is no reason to assume they would not continue to do business with us.
As to Germany ruling Europe, so what ? how is that different the the present day EU, other than the EU being less efficiently organized . Germany was a continental power, since we get no raw materials from Europe (they didn't have anything we didn't have in greater supply ) German domination of Europe had no effect on the US.
For the morale side, Germany hated the Soviets, We hated the Soviets, they had the stated intention of subverting Western society and destroying our way of life, (Look around, they did it  ).
Germany wanted the Jews out of German territory, We didn't like Jews either, we refused most refugees unless they had something special to offer, like Einstein, and we weren't treating blacks much better than the Nazi's originally treated the Jews.
As for supporting the "Allies", America's best interest would have been to supply the tools and materials while sparing our blood. The real reason we fought in Europe was to promote FDR's vision of a renewed League of Nations that he chose to call the "United Nation's".
We see how well that worked out.