| Monthly Archives | [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1) the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2) in the public domain, with free use granted for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email.
Original content copyright © 2006 - 2008 by the respective authors. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed.
Site contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com
Wanna see a couple of minutes of my last helo flight? I had PLENTY of time to take a film clip... see what I mean here. Heh heh.
The Pentagon says it isn't formally considering a change in policy at this point, but Mr. Gates's comments sparked a heated debate on military blogs, message boards and email lists.That caught me by surprise - I rarely discover something "military blogs" are engaged in "heated debate" on via the Wall Street Journal - usually I hear of the debate on actual military blogs first (and I never see those debates migrate to the mainsteam media).
So I checked the invaluable blog search engine technorati, in hopes of discovering these military blogs I hadn't discovered yet. To my surprise, I found the only citations of this particular topic were from blogs referencing this Wall Street Journal article - I could find none that preceded it, and couldn't find any milblogs among those that followed.
But I suppose that "military blogs" offering "heated debate" on a topic somehow validate it as significant, so the line appears in the article.
By the way, here's the topic:
Centuries before Iraq and Afghanistan, George Washington created the Purple Heart to honor troops wounded in combat.For my part I say PTSD is real, and this idea is real bad. And as for Gates' "cautious support ", I interpret a response of "that's an interesting suggestion - we'll look into it" as being senior milspeak for "no".But with an increasing number of troops being diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, the modern military is debating an idea Gen. Washington never considered -- awarding one of the nation's top military citations to veterans with psychological wounds, not just physical ones.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates offered cautious support for such a change on a trip to a military base in Texas this month.
"It's an interesting idea," Mr. Gates said in response to a question. "I think it is clearly something that needs to be looked at."
The Pentagon says it isn't formally considering a change in policy at this point, but Mr. Gates's comments sparked a heated debate on military blogs, message boards and email lists. The dispute reflects a broader question roiling the military: Can psychological traumas, no matter how debilitating, be considered equivalent to dismembering physical wounds?
Supporters of awarding the Purple Heart to veterans with PTSD believe the move would reduce the stigma that surrounds the disorder and spur more soldiers and Marines to seek help without fear of limiting their careers.
As for "stigma" - like the heated military blog debate and Gates' "cautious support", I believe its more a figment of an over eager (but possibly well-intentioned) reporter's imagination. (Actually, there's more to it than that, but this should get things started. We'll check for "heat" in the comments later...)
Unfortunately—and here Feith is critical of his ultimate boss, George W. Bush—the administration allowed its critics to frame the issue around the fact that stockpiles of weapons weren't found. Here we see at work the liberal fallacy, apparent in debates on gun control, that weapons are the problem, rather than the people with the capability and will to use them to kill others. The fact that millions of law-abiding Americans have guns is not a problem; the problem is that criminals can get them and have the will to kill others. Similarly, the fact that France has WMDs is not a problem; the fact that Saddam Hussein had the capability to produce WMDs and the will to use them against us was.I will say it explains my own position before the fall of Baghdad (and unchanged since):
Saddam Hussein is a weapon of mass destruction. Okay? But only as the head of a government. Get a grip, get a clue. We are doing what's right....but Barone certainly says it better than I did.Iraq could manufacture WMD. We know this. Suppose they stopped for a while and destroyed all their stores. What stops them from rebuilding their supply?