This is exactly right, otherwise they would not be able to keep going. I think one reason Viet Nam vets had so much mental trauma, was the belated realization by many that the war was not a moral one. Of course it didn’t help that many were not honored by our country once they returned to civilian life. All of the questions that they were trained not to ask probably remain unanswered upon their return.

In the final analysis, every war must be judged on a cost-benefits analysis. Its really hard to see that anything was gained by our experience in Vietnam, and the cost was excruciating. Unfortunately, I see Iraq in the same way. The best we can hope for is to prevent a regional bloodbath, but the cost to our military and our treasury is unsustainable.

The question is: are they too close to see the forest for the trees?
And ultimately: who should make the decision reagrding war?

Another complicating factor is that in these days of an all voluntary army (I’m NOT knocking it), the military families living on and around military bases have become a community set apart from the rest of us. The rest of us have not been affected in any significant way at all by this war. This creates a disconnect between those supporting the troops with facile phrases and those living the war on a daily basis.

There is a group of Iraq vets advocating for continuing the war on the basis that to stop would dishonor the fallen troops. This thinking seems to imply that, once started, any war must continue until a defining victory is achieved or the last man has fallen. This is a stark measure to live by.

It’s a tragic mess, no matter how you look at it.

I would guess that it’s hard to admit that you’re fighting a bad war, especially if you take pride in your job, the military, your training and your country.

Your response squares with a blogger of my acquaintance who spends a lot of time on the ground in Iraq.

He did not want to be quoted by name, but said the vast majority of troops honestly believe that the war is the right thing.

My gut feeling tells me that when you are in combat you don’t really have the time to reflect on the political situation that surrounds you. It’s about your life, your squad and the enemy.

At the same time I’m sure that in your downtime you’d most likely be accutely aware of the larger situation, as long as you watched more than FOX News.

How you would respond to knowing that most of the country wants the troops gone would likely stem from your overall feelings on the war itself. If you think it’s a bad war, you’d be happy to leave and feel supported. Otherwise, you probably wouldn’t feel so happy and probably feel betrayed.

I had hoped for a philosophical discussion and not a partisan one. Let’s give that a try, okay?

Besides which, if the House anti-surge resolution passes, will soldiers in Iraq start bleeding blue?

Aren’t troops from a democracy supposed to fight for our democracy? What’s a democracy without argument and dissent?

Republican Congressman Ron Paul before the U.S. House of Representatives, February 14, 2007

In Iraq, different ptinciples collide head on.
The obligation to do what’s best for our nation collides with the obligation to do our best for the country this war has destroyed.

I will never forget the newsreels of desperate Viet Namese trying to clamber on to the last helicopters leaving that country. Those who had collaborated with the US were left behind to die.

Now we have ‘it’s up to the Iraqis’ versus ‘you broke it, it’s yours’.
It’s as difficult to end a bad war as it is to fight it.