I had seen the story before but for some reason this morning, viewing the CNN clip again, it hit me very hard. The burial of the second of three brother who are serving in Iraq. Jared and Nathan Hubbard both in their early 20s and both killed. A third bother Jason, serving in Iraq, has just been sent home.
I watched the clips of the Hubbard family talking about doing their duty, about honor and about loving their country. I watched a father cry as he spoke of his second son above his casket. I saw Americans who believe in patriotism, not as a slogan but as a way of life.
Then I get to watch George Bush and Mitt Romney tell me the troop surge is working. Bush and Romney talking about fighting terrorism and sacrifice. All I saw were two Bush daughters and five Romney sons (all of age for active duty), the children of fathers who talk tough about war and express sadness when U.S. Troops die but whose children are safe and far from the fight.
I am old enough to vividly remember Vietnam. My Brother served in combat there and came home. I remember a TV ad with two older men standing in a field and then having a fist fight. The voice over said “If wars were fought by leaders, maybe there would be less wars”. Watching the video of the Hubbard family cry over a second casket, all I can think is if wars were fought by only the children of the politicians who support the war, maybe there will be less war.
I haven’t felt this sad in years. If this comes across as bitter, as somehow unfair to the kids of rich, pro-war types, so be it. Right now I am sad…and angry.
Well said.
…Vietnam was largely fought by conscripts, people who were impressed into service. They were basically Shanghaied.
<
p>
My issue is the following. The Hubbard’s situation is unfortunate. But, given the ages of the Hubbards children when they met their maker, it was not unreasonable for the Hubbards to have foreseen what would happen to their child-enlistees, probably at the beginning of the Iraq Krieg. Pardon my french but what did the parents do to discourage their children from becoming cannon fodder for the GWBush miliary? Anything?
<
p>
The Hubbards’ children weren’t conscripts, they were volunteers. What, if anything, did they do to discourage their children from volunteering? Until that question is answered, I’ll withhold judgement as to whether or not I should be sympathetic to their personal situation.
<
p>
And those dead firemen too. They volunteered. And those buried miners. While we’re at it, why should I feel sorry for the Katrina victims? They chose to live in New Orleans. Those Jews in germany in WWII? They didn’t have to be Jewish.
<
p>
You go! Don’t give those childless parent a whit of sympathy because they didn’t do enough to keep their kid from volunteering. They suck.
just made me ashamed to be a liberal.
or anything like it.
If you wished to come off as a cold, insensitive, condescending person, you have succeeded.
<
p>
Whether their children “had it coming” becuse they volunteered for a war they “reasonably” should have known would be poorly run and the parents didn’t do enough to talk them out of it or the family’s faith was betrayed, they have lost two children.
<
p>
Any parent that has lost a child is worthy of some sympathy.
<
p>
I hope you reread your post and realize how it represents you. And I hope you find it doesn’t represent your true feelings very well.
But I will actually attempt to answer it.
<
p>
Nothing. I suspect they did absolutely nothing to discourage them from going the services. In fact, I bet they encouraged it and
wereare proud of them for making the decision to serve their country.<
p>
And I am not out on a line here. The family is proud of their sons and brothers sacrifice.
<
p>
<
p>
I don’t generally like to include this much quoting in my posts but I felt it was important the people here see how this family is reacting to the tragic deaths of their sons and brothers.
As long as people continue to blame parents for a president’s lack of leadership and honesty, then young men and women will continue to die in needless wars. It is disgraceful to blame those who trusted, rather than those who betrayed that trust.
Raj: My reaction this morning was one of anger at Bush and Romney and all of those who sell this war as an American’s duty.
<
p>
The Hubbards struck me as decent, honest, mid-western people who pay their bills, go to church and trust their government. My anger came from the fact that the trust they place in their government was betrayed.
<
p>
They believe that their sons did what is right and expected of them. They are shatterd as a family over the loss but proud of who their sons were, proud of their courage. They know their sons died heroes. I believe with all my heart that the Hubbards are right. They did what Americans do when they are told their country is in need.
<
p>
What made me so sad, aside form the loss of young lives, was my sense of how the Hubbards have been betrayed by Bush and are continuing to be betrayed by Romney, McCain and the others who tell them this war is worth the loss. It isn’t. But if I ever had the opportunity to meet the Hubbards I would tell them how proud I was to meet a family like them and that I mourn the two heroes that were Jared and Nathan.
<
p>
My anger came from listening to the clip of the young woman who described Nathan taking her by the hand at a pool party one night, walking to the diving board and dancing with her to a song. She said she would always remember Nathan because that was her first slow dance.
<
p>
Bush’s daughter will be getting married in some major ceremony soon. According to Mitt, his five sons are serving the country by helping him run for president. Bush and Romney say the say words that Mr. Hubbard says about service and duty but Nathan and Jared will never have the chances that the Bush and Romney kids have.
<
p>
Three fathers saying the same things. Only one is paying the price. Double the price.
I understand that I will be flamed for this too, just as raj was, but here goes. I am deeply saddened by that family’s loss, just as I am by all losses or life and limb and emotional stability our military has suffered in Iraq. However, I am also saddened that there seems to be a never-ending stream of people who have blind faith in their government. When will they wake up? Signing up to serve while Bush is president is aiding and abetting a criminal. Not one volunteer can be under any illusions that they aren’t likely to be used in Iraq or supporting areas. Not one of them deserves to die, and not one of them asked for it. But when it happens, it is a little late for buyers remorse. So really I guess what I am saying is that I am deeply saddened by two things: the loss of our soldiers, and the enduring self-delusion of the people who keep signing up.
I understand where Raj is coming from on this but agree more in spirit with your thoughts here:
<
p>
Yes. It’s not any one official’s (or his sons’) lack of military service that bugs me. It’s the relative lack of service by college-educated elites who go on to govern, something Virginia Senator James Webb has written a lot about. “Joining the Marines for people from South Boston is the equivalent of going to Harvard for people from Scarsdale.”
<
p>
However,
<
p>
I wonder if the late Hubbards would want us all to at least examine the mixed bag of results over the last few months, and go beyond CNN’s surface coverage.
<
p>
For me, some must-read photo blogging of the surge in Anbar is here.
<
p>
First, as part of a family that had three of three brothers proudly serve in the military during WWII, I feel what the Hubbard family has raised is three heroes that have proudly and honorably served our country. They set a tremendous example for the rest of the country, rich, poor, black, white, what ever. I thank them for that and have the deepest sympathy on their loss.
<
p>
Second, I also feel their is an issue with the disproportionate representation of the rich and non-rich in the armed forces. However, it is a voluntary service and we can’t force people to volunteer. Personally, I think the fix is to go to a system like Israel. Everyone, men and women, have to serve at least two years in the service and then can decide to serve longer if they choose.
<
p>
Third, and this comes from my friends and family that are currently in the service including one of my best friends that has been in the service for 16 years and was in Iraq for the initial part of the war with Psy. Ops., we need to either let the soldier fight or get the hell out. We are not allowing the soldiers to fight this war they way they want. We are trying to fight a kinder, gentler war and the result is our soldiers are dying needlessly and we are being bogged down and not accomplishing anything. This current administration is practically criminally negligent is how they are prosecuting this war.
The observation
<
p>
Personally, I think the fix is to go to a system like Israel. Everyone, men and women, have to serve at least two years in the service and then can decide to serve longer if they choose.
<
p>
Here in Germany, they actually do have conscription. But the conscripts can elect to go into military service, or to serve their term in quasi-civilian service. And a lot of the conscripts are increasingly choosing the latter.
<
p>
It would be difficult to import that construct to the US, because there seems to be no provision in the US constitution that gives Congress the power to conscript for anything but the military.
<
p>
Regarding the Israeli “two years and you’re out” situation, I’m not exactly sure that that is correct. And I’m not exactly sure that a high-tech military such as the US’s would want people to enlist for only two years.
<
p>
The comment, actually two
<
p>
We are not allowing the soldiers to fight this war they way they want.
<
p>
I will just remind you of Clausewitz’s war is politics continued by other means. The problem that you have is that we do not want them to fight this, or any other, war any way that they might want. If we did want them to have that power, they could unleash an atomic bomb over Baghdad. What is the political end result that you want? And see if the Iraqis want the political end result that you want. Work backward from the answers to those questions to determine the tactics that are to be pursued to achieve a political end result.
<
p>
We are trying to fight a kinder, gentler war and the result is our soldiers are dying needlessly and we are being bogged down and not accomplishing anything.
<
p>
The problem that you have in Iraq is…who is the alleged enemy, why are they the alleged enemy and where are they? Unless those three questions have been answered, you can’t really expect the US military to accomplish much of anything. And apparently, the questions haven’t been answered. Returning to Clausewitz, it is a political end solution (Endziel) that you are looking for, but apparently, the US hasn’t figured out what that Endziel might look like.
I wouldn't exactly call a military outfitted with M2 Bradleys, Super Dvora coastal vessels, submarines, F-16ls, and nuclear weapons “low-tech”. The Israeli conscripts seem to do just fine with that equipment. Regardless, here in the United States conscription would likely elevate the education level of the military, as current volunteers are typically less educated.
Why all this gratuitous German? Endziel is not a special German word like Geist that is untranslatable and might be needed to convey a special meaning. I was reflecting on this recently. In literary essays, German and Italian might occasionally be quoted but they are always translated. French and Latin are used much more readily. Not long ago, I suppose, it was expected that a liberal education included both French and Latin — and maybe ancient Greek too.
Occasionally German has a pleasing concreteness or terseness. It rhymes very well. However, it's still a specialty.
Unless your Endziel is to obfuscate.
First to the conscript/Israeli-like system and this comment is to all that have commented on my original post on this. I was referring to a system like this. As is referred to in the Israeli system, some positions require commitments of longer then the required service. People who choose to go down those paths would choose to enlist for longer then the required time. Also, I was thinking that the people would serve in all branches of our services. This would include the national guard, coast guard, navy, etc. So while not everyone would be serving in a combat position, they could be supporting the country by doing things like assisting in the construction of the border wall/fence, guarding the borders, large scale construction projects under the control of the Army Corps of Engineers like the levies in New Orleans, etc. I was also referring to the fact that Israelis are members of the reserve until they are 43 years old or older if they choose. I think we could use our current age of 35 for draft eligibility would work.
As to the constitutional requirements for such a change, I will defer to you. If an amendment is required then so be it.
As to the question from Laurel about paying for this, if a tax increase is needed then OK. I would prefer to see it fix by addressing the cost-plus concept of defense contracts or some other inefficiency.
To your comments, this also includes people who had problems with my kinder gentler comment. (even Laurel's smart ass comment on following orders that doesn't really deserve a response) I would first like to call attention to this myspace blog post that someone I know wrote about something that happened to him in Iraq.
When I say that the soldiers are not being allowed to fight this war and that we are fighting a kindler gentler war this story comes to mind. Here are a group of soldiers going out on patrol through an area of known insurgent attacks, seeing highly suspicious activity but were told to press on even though all instinct was to stop and check out the situation. We are ordering these 19-20 year old kids (as someone else put it) to NOT use their training to identify these situation and respond to them as they should. They should have stopped, detained the individuals acting suspiciously and investigated the situation. Instead our soldiers are dealing a situation where only deaths of confirmed insurgents are expectable and stopping and questioning these suspected insurgents could result in a fire fight so they can't proceed as they are trained to because if they killed any Iraqis that can't be confirmed to be insurgents they will get in trouble.
Yes, this is anecdotal and I will give two other anecdotes. Another friend was in Iraq for the original phase of the war. While on patrol they encountered enemy fire from a three story building including RPGs. When he was in Bosnia the response to a situation like this was to take cover and call in an air strike for the building. When he did this in Iraq he was told that they could not provide air cover and that they had to clear the building. Six soldiers were severely injured trying to clear the building. When he returned to HQ he enquired why they couldn't get air support. He was told that type of air support was not being used in this war to try and not offend the “Arab Street”.
The other anecdote has to do with something that made the papers. My friend was with a unit that found a weapons cash that had AK's, RPGs, hand grenades, etc. They inventoried the weapons and then were set to destroy them, as is typical standard practice when you can't adequately guard them. He was ordered not to because they wanted to use the weapons to outfit the new Iraqi army. They left the weapons unguarded and when they returned they were gone, mostly they were being used by the insurgents to kill US troops.
These are the types of things I was referring to when I wrote that the soldiers were not being allowed to fight this war as they would normally. The comment on the nuclear war head over Baghdad was just ridiculous. No one is suggesting that other then kooky right wing talk show hosts. Although, for the record, if the conditions in Iraq were such that a nuclear weapon was the best option, for instance as they were in WWII in Japan, then I would support such an action. But we are fighting an insurgency in Iraq, not another country with a standing army and the support of the people.
As to your point that we don't know who “they” are. I don't entirely agree. Yes there are some insurgents that do a good job of blending into the populace but the majority are identifiable by our troops.
Raj, I did start to look into the low intensity war you posted. However, examining this will take more time then I have at the moment. I bookmarked it and will get to it latter when I have more time.
I apologize if this is formatted incorrectly, I’m having an issue that I don’t know how to fix.
…do a google search on search term “low intensity conflict.” The British were quite successful in beating back a communist insurgency in 1948-1950 in Malaysia. But they were able to do that by (a) having a functioning government in place (unlike Iraq) and (b) by giving protective sanctuary to the vast majority of the people (some might call it herding them into concentration camps, but it really was not like that), and (c) eliminating the insurgents.
<
p>
What has the US done in Iraq? No functioning government, and no prospect of one. And no protection for the indigenous population.
http://www.globalsec…
can we afford to train, house and feed each and every american for 2 years? if not, would you be willing to call for increased taxes to pay for it?
The goal of the war — to the extent that one can even be discerned from the incompetent Cheney Regency — is not to kill as many Iraqis as possible. It is to leave behind a stable Iraq that functions a bit like a nation state. Sort of like Belgium with its Walloons and Flemish.
You don't accomplish that by being as brutal as can be. Being as brutal as you can be only works against standing armies. When was the last time we had such a war? Was it on the Korean peninsula? It's not the one going on in Iraq. New tactics are needed in the post-Eisenhower era.
it bears repeating that soldiers are never allowed to fight however they want. unless of course, they are given specific liberty to do so by their superiors. a soldier’s duty is to follow orders. not sure how JK can’t know that, being so tight with so many soldiers and all. don’t like that soldiers get ordered around? then don’t enlist!
Our military is made up largely of 19- and 20-year old kids who don't speak the language, rarely share the religion, grew up in a different culture, often don't have sufficient education, and haven't been trained for police work, civilian control, or urban combat.
What type of war do you think these kids want to fight, exactly?
Our patriotic and altruistic sentiments get manipulated by the people who get secondary gain from sending other people to war
<
p> The “War is a Racket”
<
p>
http://www.lexrex.co…
…I intentionally refrained from responding to comments to my comment to see what others might say. I’m actually disappointed at the responsive comments.
<
p>
If Striker57 @ Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 16:24:59 PM EDT
<
p>
My reaction this morning was one of anger at Bush and Romney and all of those who sell this war as an American’s duty.
<
p>
was your point, it would have helped if you had said so. Why bring the Hubbards into it?
<
p>
On the other hand, regarding
<
p>
They believe that their sons did what is right and expected of them.
<
p>
it was reported upstream that the parents encouraged their children to join the US military at a time when it was clear peradventure that it was likely that they would be sent to Iraq. I’m sure that you know what goes on in combat: people get shot at and killed. And I’m sure that the parents knew that, too. So why would they encourage their children to voluntarily enlist for an unnecessary war in Iraq?
<
p>
I am saddened by the parents’ losses, but I do not for one minute believe that they were not partially culpable–if not significantly culpable–for their loss. And that’s why I am not going to give them a pass.
<
p>
Going upstream a bit, someone mentioned WWII in comparison. Sorry, try to compare it all you want, but the fact is that US territories had actually been attacked by the Japanese Empire. And after the US declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on the US, after which the US declared war on Germany. At least Japan had shown that it could project power against the US. Germany had actually been engaged in low-level naval warfare against US shipping interests (lend-lease) for years before the US actually declared war against Germany. On the other hand, Iraq never did have the ability to project power against the US. And therein lies the difference.
<
p>
Also re noternie @ Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 09:51:04 AM EDT
<
p>
Whether their children “had it coming” becuse they volunteered for a war they “reasonably” should have known would be poorly run and the parents didn’t do enough to talk them out of it or the family’s faith was betrayed, they have lost two children.
<
p>
I sincerely don’t know where you got this “Whether their children “had it coming’…” out of what I wrote. What I wrote was a potential criticism of the parents, not their children. Please learn how to read.
People who trust their government need to have their heads examined: http://www.snopes.co…