[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: Richard Perle's Revisionist History November 21, 2006 These days there seems to be an effort in Washington to rewrite the history of the war on terror. The finger pointing between lawmakers and pundits has escalated to epic proportions. But this isn't just a curiosity to fill newspaper column inches or television air time. We need to get history right for each and every one of the 3,000 who have died in this war. The revisionism should concern us all. Not only should the public weigh in on this spectacle, it should understand the chief personality behind it and what this means. A man named Richard Perle has declared that President Bush betrayed their counsel for the Iraq war. Making the rounds of the TV talk shows, he claims that the war would have been different had their counsel been followed. Perle, along with his neoconservative buddies, insists that the war would have been different had the President just listened. War is a dangerous enterprise. Just ask those who are veterans of Iraq or Afghanistan. War planners have an obligation to get it right, to make certain that our efforts yield fruit and as many troops come home as possible. If we listen carefully to Perle and his colleagues, he says that he knew better. It is both outrageous and immoral that this group would stand idly by while our troops die on the field of battle. Following a stint in the Marine Corps in Vietnam, I spent five years serving as a senior aide in the U.S. where I got to know Perle. His ambition frightened me. He and his peers would crucify anyone who challenged them. Even then he was disconnected from reality. He saw soldiers as pieces on a grand chessboard, not living and breathing men and women ready to die for their country. When a leader commits warriors to battle, it is important that it be done understanding the potential costs, including the human costs. While one may dislike President Bush, he has never shirked from the duty of leading. That is why the vast majority of servicemembers admire him. Contemporary war fighting requires skills and experiences best found in the ranks of the military. It requires an understanding of the psychological makeup of the enemy and how we can best use our military and its capacity to defeat the enemy. History is clear that it was Perle’s neocons who led us into the war in Iraq. In fact, he wanted the war even before 9/11 came. Perle promised that the war would be like a walk in the park. When the CIA questioned intelligence in the lead up to the war, Perle shouted them down. When then Secretary of State Colin Powell questioned the rush to enter the war, Perle called him a “wuss.” When General Shinsheki asked for more troops on the ground, Perle was nowhere to be found. As I watch Perle struggle to rewrite history, I am reminded of a key difference between us. Unlike Perle, I had served in a war. This dissimilarity made Perle slightly uncomfortable when I was around him. While Perle and his buddies dodged military service, I had fought as a Marine in Vietnam. In so doing, I had seen what happened when diplomatic options failed and swords were raised. While this experience ingrained my hatred of communism, it also made me aware enormous human cost in war fighting. In three decades of running this nation, I have yet to see an ounce of understanding that Perle cares about the human cost of war. If he so desired to know about the “boots,” he could have gone to Iraq, downed a few MREs, and learned from the young folks who are doing the fighting and dying. When our defense leaders are chosen, careful attention should be paid to ensure that they are truly capable of making the life and death decisions of this nation. In most cases, this would suggest that we favor leaders with military experience. That is exactly why we need individuals like Colin Powell. His selection may not guarantee that perfect decisions are made, but it will ensure that those involved have a balanced perspective on war fighting. And that would be better for this nation. That would honor those who serve.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
#1. To: Brian S, Dakmar, Eoghan, bluegrass, Esso (#0)
When a leader commits warriors to battle, it is important that it be done understanding the potential costs, including the human costs. While one may dislike President Bush, he has never shirked from the duty of leading. That is why the vast majority of servicemembers admire him. I respectively disagree with him about Smirk, but his personal experience with demonic Perle certainly fits what we've learned about him.
robin I would hope you would call Burky on this.
The disparity in the author's understanding of Perle and Smirk is amazing. Many recruits are very young and have no doubt been brainwashed first by public schooling and then by the military into having the utmost respect for The Commander in Chief, no matter what. Nevertheless, certain websites indicate that there are many servicemen in Iraq who are very unhappy with the direction of the war and the leadership. They remain anonymous, as you can imagine.
There are no replies to Comment # 6. End Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||