Thursday, April 12, 2007

West Point grads exit service at high rate

"Recent graduates of the US Military Academy at West Point are choosing
to leave active duty at the highest rate in more than three decades, a
sign to many military specialists that repeated tours in Iraq are
prematurely driving out some of the Army's top young officers."

West Point grads exit service at high rate - The Boston Globe

Yet another reason why this war has hurt our national defenses, not
improved them. An illegal, unpopular war hurts the Armed
Forces credibility, therefore, damaging recruitment and lowering the quality of recruits and leadership.

9 comments:

Whatever said...

Interesting.

Whatever said...

Oh, one other comment,

On your blog, please define "an illegal and unpopular war"

Illegal where? International Law or US law? This is the first I have heard the war was Illegal.

TTH said...

I thought the statement was self-evident. Both how it was started and how it is being waged appear to be clearly illegal.

Fraud is illegal.
Cluster bombs are illegal.
Targeting civilians is illegal.
Torture is illegal.

I won't take up space here to paste in long quotes from international law experts, but many point to the U.S. violating Articles 51 and 39 of the UN Charter. Also, UN Resolution 1441 didn't authorize force, only inspections for WMD in Iraq.

We supposedly went in because we KNEW Saddam was hiding WMD from the inspectors. Bush told us that the UN didn't have the balls to back up their own law, so he was going to do it for them. He was wrong.

Whatever said...

I guess you answered my question.

International law experts.

If it's illegal, why aren't there prosecutions, or at least sanctions against the US?

TTH said...

I don't know how international law works. I don't get the impression it works immediately or even effectively. If you kill someone, and don't get caught, did you break the law?

whatever said...

Exactly, it doesn't work effectively. So is it something by which we should judge or evaluate?

TTH said...

Let me rephrase. The enforcement of the law may be ineffective, but if the law is based on sound morals, then yes it should be used to judge or evaluate.

Whatever said...

Did you delete my earlier comment? I didn't think it was that offensive!!

Anyway, I will try again.

Do you think the UN charter and rules are based on sound morals?

When anti-democratic nations and totalitarian regimes are given full voice and vote, I seriously call into question the morality of the UN. I certainly didn't vote to ratify their charter, nor did any other citizen.

Government exists by the consent of the governed (not the consent of the elites or kings or anyother smartypants), and near as I can tell, no one asked for the people's consent for the UN, thus they are not a legitimate legal authority to me.

Now, if we entered into an agreement with other nations through the UN, those agreements should be honored, but breaking those agreements isn't illegal, as no legal authority exists.

I am not a scholar, nor am I even that smart on these issues, but these are my simple assumptions based on my knowledge of 10th grade civics.

TTH said...

I didn't delete any comments.

It seems to me our elected officials join into agreements with other countries all the time, and they are legally binding. We have given them the authority to do this. The law at work is international law. The UN is one of the organizations where agreements are entered into. If you choose to rank international law lower than U.S. law, that's your perogative. However, the Bush administration used UN law as justification of invade Iraq. You felt international law was important then when you supported his actions. Why are you poo-pooing it now?