There is a lot to admire in Captain Secher. I feel deeply sad for his family and honor his commitment to family and country. Clearly, he was a deep thinking man (and a devotee of history, which I think a necessity for anyone who would expound on international policy). I agreed with a great deal of what he said. For instance:

If you really want to win a war you have to be brutal. You have to be Sherman and raze Georgia as you march to the sea.

This is the whole tragedy of war. People are so quick to only criticize the Marines and to demonize these young men. I pity them. Their lives are ruined, ruined by their actions which are judged by men who have never been in those situations.

I have said similar things in previous posts. I am not a fan of staying the course. I have always thought we needed to fight a harder, harsher war. We are trying too hard to “nice” it up. War is an ugly business. You can’t fight nice and win.

Captain Secher never said the war was not worth it. He said that the way we were fighting was not going to work.

He was no pacifist. His parents describe him as an unswerving Republican, and his own dispatches consistently defend the invasion of Iraq even as he anguishes over its dwindling prospects of success.

I hope his death is not used by the Cindy Sheehan types. I think he would hate that.

"Don't mistake us for Cindy Sheehan," Pierre Secher told NEWSWEEK at his Memphis home (a reference to the California woman who became an iconic opponent of the war after her son's death in Iraq). "To me, pacifism could have led to Hitler's victory. We might have all been speaking German and Japanese right now."

Either side of the argument using the death of a soldier/sailor/marine is cheap. On the other hand, why should his opinion pro or con count for more than anothers?

Something happens however when you take a step back. Its no longer one sailor, or two marines, or even a dozen soldiers. Its an aggregate loss that gnaws at our nation. We begin to ask, is it worth the cost?

Each person, each American citizen, has a right to form his own opinion about what our govt does. Hopefully he then votes on his/her convictions. I fail to see why we constantly believe that warriors have a right to speak authoritatively about war, except insofar as the conditions under which they fight it.

In my 6 years in the reserves I never saw combat, for that I am completely grateful. I don’t feel however that makes me less qualified to pass judgement than anybody else about what our nation does in the world, especially with regards to war.

Each time I hear a story of another person who was killed in Iraq, I weep a bit on the inside and I ask myself was it worth it? More importantly though is my judgement worth less because I am not there?

Josh

Harder, harsher war, PD? I posted about this earlier, come on, get real. No one, I mean no one f***s with the US military. We possess the strongest, most agile, most devastating fighting force on earth. Our annual defense budget surpasses the defense expenditures of all other countries on earth COMBINED. We have lost nearly 3000 and crippled no telling how many soldiers in this war, and trust me, the other side’s casualties are a lot worse. They probably lose 10 for every one we lose. Trust me, our guys aren’t holding back, they’re letting ’em have it with everything they’ve got. When our patrols get fired on, our guys shoot back until the fire stops. And sometimes that means calling for a tank or a Hornet to drop a 500 or 2000 pounder. That’s just how assymetrical urban warfare works, it’s tough, brutal and ugly. Not a John Wayne movie at all. I’m sure there are a lot of guys on this board (some of whom are active duty, I might add) that would like to hear your detailed plans on how to win this conflict. “Getting tough” or “fighting harder” ain’t cutting it. In fact if you told the guys over there sweating in that 120 degree heat that you think they’re fighting “too nicely”, I think you just might get a boot in your ass.

There’s a famous story about a meeting between American and Vietnamese generals at the war’s end. The American general said, “You know, you never beat us in battle.” The Vietnamese general replied, “That is true, but it is also irrelevant.”

Sorry, I’m obviously a poorly informed idiot. I am humbled by your awesome mastery of politics, military history, and urban warfare tactics; I am shamed by your patently superior patriotism and ideological bent. I beg your forgiveness, PD. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I must go to my telescreen. The Two Minutes Hate is about to start!

Nice sarcasm, concho. Was it supposed to be persuasive in some way?

Within the above article was the following:

Anytime an American fires a weapon there has to be an investigation into why there was an escalation of force. That wouldn't have stopped us from firing, but it prevents us from just firing indiscriminately. We have to have positively identified targets. That is why I am now a big fan of having the Iraqis with us. They can fire at whatever the hell they want, we call it the "Iraqi Death Blossom." These guys receive one shot and the whole unit fires at everything in sight until the attached American unit gets them to control their fire. That's fine with me.

This is an example of how our soldiers’ hands are tied due to policy. This has nothing to do with ability or available firepower.

Good explaination JES.

I used this example because it happened to be in the linked article. The point is that are soldiers must hold back in these instances as well as many others.

Are you so up to speed on our policy, then? Have you been going door to door in Iraq? Do you know anything about the R.O.E? Do you know what that means (if you don’t, I’m sure you can look it up on the internet)?

Concho – Fortunately we do not have to debate you on the issue of firing indiscriminately since this Marine did a good enough job of it already.