Gen. Petraeus Admits Son Served Tour in Afghanistan

[Flesh Thorn]

WASHINGTON -- Challenged by a congressman to "be honest" about how long American troops might have to fight in Afghanistan, Army Gen. David Petraeus revealed that he has a personal stake in ensuring that the U.S. war objectives are met -- his son, Stephen, whose recent combat tour was kept "very quiet."

In an emotional exchange with Rep. Walter B. Jones, a Republican, Petraeus said "if I ever felt that we couldn't achieve our objectives," he would be "very forthright" not only with his superiors in the military chain of command but also with President Barack Obama and members of the Congress.

Noting that Obama has said the U.S. will have combat troops out by the end of 2014, with the Afghan government in position to provide its own security, a skeptical Jones said he could imagine a senior military leader coming before Congress in 2015 and pleading for more time and more sacrifice.

Read more: http://foxnews.com/us/2011/03/16/gen-pe ... z1GoColHF5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Jim]

Well, as they said during Viet-Nam: "Was is good business, invest your son." I would certainly feel better if it were more common.

[colt1rgr]

Now what I'd really like to see is more politicians with military service, or at least a son currently serving. How come that isn't more common?

politicians = douchebags

X2!

[mortar_guy78]

Now what I'd really like to see is more politicians with military service, or at least a son currently serving. How come that isn't more common?

politicians = douchebags

X2!

x3!

There was a great article linked here a few weeks ago about a Marine General who's son was killed in A-stan. The General ended up making a pretty scathing speech at an award ceremony for a member of his son's platoon which took place a few days after his son's death. He did not mention his son, but basically remarked that military service to our nation is rapidly becoming a burden that is borne by very few, and often that it is a family tradition where you have multiple generations serving. This spoke particularly to me, as my son and I are both on active duty, both Infantrymen, and have both been to combat in the GWOT (although I've got 3 tours to his 1 and every time he talks shit I just tell him that I've got more time in the chow line than he has in combat).

The Gen. also made the observation that there is a growing psychological distance between those who are serving and those who are not who have no understanding of the sacrifices that we make or the realities of war.

I'll see if I can find the linky and post it again in the context of this thread.

[CatFish Driver]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 938_5.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Troglodyte]

Perhaps the distance exists because today's infantry types are dinosaurs, with "old school" attitudes and values, despite the cultural shift going on all around them.

No matter how bad society gets, there will always be enough of us knuckleheads around to set things straight when things go bad. It's good that so many generals' (and sergeants') kids are sticking with the family business!

Trog

[Jim]

It honestly bothers me, because the more the US is disconnected from military service, the easier the country gets riled up and war happy for some unnecessary event, like invading Iraq.

What? You were unaware we invaded Iraq?

[Troglodyte]

Nope, it's because nobody thinks or pays attention. Same morons enthusiastically voted for the current POTUS, and have now turned on him. WHY did they turn on him--what changed their minds?

Many of us NEVER supported his candidacy, because we knew that despite his pretty words, his associations with bad people and his stunning lack of achievements in any field didn't bode well for his future performance. His subsequent actions were no surprise to us.

The people who are shocked and disapointed at his performance should do a little remedial study before voting again. Same principle as the folks who turned on the war effort. There's room for honest debate on policy, but stupidity clouds things. Some people need to get back to their WWF and leave the issues of the day to the big boys.

As to the Iraq invasion, given that the whole world believed that Saddam had at least attempted to buy yellowcake (and Joe Wilson's report confirmed that they had been looking), it would have been irresponsible NOT to act. Further, after his assassination attempt on Bush 41, we would have had no credibility in most of the world had we let him live.

Was the invasion the best COA, and was it planned and executed competently? Opinions vary. But invasion was more responsible than inaction.

And if you were paying attention, you know that most of the WMD toys are now in Syria. Their disappearance from Iraq doesn't mean they never existed. Had Bush been lying about his reasons for going to war (as others not on this board have implied), he and his "evil cabal of Neocons" would certainly have had the sense to plant some WMD evidence jus ahead of 3ID's Baghdad "Thunder Run."

Trog

[Troglodyte]

My point is, as long as the portion of the American population that is involved in the military shrinks compared to the overall population, nobody will recognize the implications of what it means to serve over seas.

Agreed, but I'm ambivalent about how to change it. Only 30% of the US population meets the standards to enlist, and only one in ten of them actually joins. I'm happy without them. Somebody who would leave the work to others in time of war has said something ugly about himself, and I'd just as soon not serve alongside a person like that.

In the mean time, as far as I'm concerned, the people who voted for Obama and are truly disappointed with his job are the far left liberals, who, quite honestly, deserve to be pissed off because they aren't in touch with reality.

I didn't mean them. Different issue. I was referring to the decent, credulous, ignorant voters who expected BHO to end all of our racial problems, make the sea levels stop rising, get the Islamic world to love and respect us, and govern from the center. Like in his campaign speeches. They were truly surprised and disappointed with what came next, because they didn't trouble themselves to learn what he was about. The far Left folks have a legitimate complaint, and although they're wrong and evil, they're at least informed and consistent.

I think Iraq is headed toward a bright future.

I'm less sanguine, but I fought alongside a good many fine Iraqi soldiers whom I join in praying that you're right.

Trog