Indeed there is some great conversation coming out of this, and I'm thankful we've managed to keep it civil.
JimJoe: I'm not arguing that all protestors are enlightened individuals who keep themselves updated on the human rights index. Some people are afraid to leave the nest, some find no need to, and some leave before they're ready. None of the three options are any more/less valid then the other. It's all a question of relevance. Let's apply this to a completely different situation.
You have a spoiled self centered wealthy child and a working class child. The wealthy child doesn't get the latest and greatest toy for Christmas, and the working class child doesn't get anything for Christmas. Both are going to experience disappointment. When you compare the two situations, one certainly seems less relevant then the other, but when the spoiled child goes to his spoiled friends and complains, his view is completely relevant, and they sympathize for him.
Those of us who see outside of our own borders are going to care, but that doesn’t make our views more valid then any others. There are people in the country who support the view that the US should act as a global police and interfere as it feels necessary, but they don’t believe in increasing welfare benefits to our own people. The logic doesn’t make sense, why essentially provide welfare to third world countries and not support those living in our borders? Why increase welfare benefits to Americans and not give a **** about the rest of the world? There will never be a perfect balance. So as far as the protestors are concerned, they are using a social tool very well.
Skunksmash: I agree completely with the shift in the purpose of war over time, and the pure absurdity of declaring war on terror. Just like the war on drugs, it’s a war that will not be won. It makes as much sense as a war on earthquakes or tsunamis. There’s a great idea, let’s launch missiles into the ocean/earth every time it makes an attempt at taking human life. But seriously, there will always be people willing to use terror as a tool to accomplish their own agenda. Hell, in the Abrahamic religions, God flooded the whole Earth to punish all life on earth for mankind being deemed far too evil. I don’t see how that is any different then some nomadic extremists wishing death upon the evil of America, even though there were plenty of innocent people aboard those four planes/WTC/Pentagon. I don’t agree at all that the US is anywhere near becoming a police state. The US military is sworn to defend the constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. That’s in our oath before mentioning the POTUS, so is our primary role. I can’t see the leadership being completely oblivious to being ordered to act against the people we enlisted to protect. So as far as your view on that is concerned, I’d say you are about 6000km of point.
As far as the legality is concerned, the Government is responsible for how they use the military, the commanders are responsible for how they use their units, the leaders are responsible for how they use their soldiers, and the soldiers are responsible for their actions. If a leader orders their team to do something legally/morally wrong it is the fault of the leader and those who executed the orders without using the gray matter their kevlar protects. There really is little to question in combat. The Geneva code defines what is unacceptable in times of war, so the only real question that is able to be raised is when to kill/destroy property. That is covered in most modern military's rules of engagement, which is why combat has evolved into what it is today. There are basic moral boundries in each culture, and I'd say those who enlist to fight for their country are aware of what those boundries are. Of course we have exceptions like the idiot MPs from Abu Ghraib who never questioned whether raping prisoners with foreign objects was right, but modern militaries aren't the barbarian hordes from histories past.
