posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 08:36 PM
reply to post by Doc Velocity
To me this shows a few things.
1. Politicians are trying to drag the war out for unknown reasons.. patrolling areas where there won't be combat will show the war not being
"violent" showing we are winning at home because our boys are not in fire fights everyday. However it also means the largest drug producing areas
of the country are not being patrolled by NATO or US forces (they would obviously be guarded).
2. It shows the Administration and top decision makers hesitant or reluctant to show a hand of force and blocking routine movement by the military in
conducting every day affairs (such as blowing up an obviously booby-trapped house). Why? One can only imagine.. again I'd say the less the military
does the more it looks like we've won .. if we engaged them head on, the battles would be more intense and the public's war weariness would continue
to rise. Not good for a President who got elected swearing to end the war.....
3. The military sees and understands everything the politicians are doing.. and are not happy, but grudgingly following the commands from up high.
4. Moral is extremely low.. the war is being lost, but lost of purpose.. and again, note that they see and understand they are being forced to loose,
not to engage.. and in the process loosing their own men.
5. A huge disconnect between politicians and military brass has occurred.. we saw the beginnings of this under Bush, but this new insider look shows
it's worse than expected..
I'd say the military is growing weary from the war it's self.. their allegiance is not with the Politicians, I think that much is certain, and they
follow commands without agreeing with them. I'd say it's also shown the Administration is casting ALL blame onto the military, taking no
responsibility... so not only do the fighting boys have to sit in the sand with their heads buried while they are slowly picked off.. they get blamed
for the catastrophes, for not winning the war, for dragging it out.. for the war it's self.
I don't know about you .. but if the military were to revolt and refuse commands from the Administration .. I'd be behind the Military, not the
I only wonder if there is a internal fight in the military branches.. a faction that supports the Politician (and the money) .. and a faction that
opposes Washington, regardless of consequences.
Also remember in the past every democratic-Republic collapsed due to a struggle between the Military and the Politicians. Even Greece had a period
where the military took over, and Rome had the army walk on their own capital more than once. Military coups are not rare, more common in fact, and
the US is not immune.