Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
He certainly wouldn't be the first person to be challenged with the reality of war.
All of his comrades in arms were challenged by that reality. They did not desert their oath or duty.
How many commit suicide or worse, lash out against others?
So few compared to those that don't as to become an insignificant number. Yet their individual actions, which are so few, can have greater consequence than most of the individual actions of those who do their duty. The renegades can disrupt the cohesion of their units and of the entire mission. Even more so if they turn over to the enemy.
I'd be curious to see what the internal investigation said about his direct leadership.
What leadership? Wasn't he a private when he abandoned his post. Wasn't he promoted while in "captivity"? Perhaps he displayed "direct leadership" while with the Taliban.
I'll let the Army make the call on this one.
The Army isn't waiting for your permission. It might, however, be influenced by the desires of the Commander in chief. That's why, at this politically loaded point, the "call" may be highly suspect.
To enlist to serve our country and then later walk unarmed into enemy territory isn't behavior you'd associate with a stable person. What I still can't calculate is how an active duty soldier help captive for 5 years could be so pilloried before the full story is even known. Wait, I can calculate it...
-spence
|
You imply that all such action would be associated with an unstable person. Are most traitors unstable? Or do they rationally choose to change sides. If you don't discount what he has said about this country, the military, Afghanistan and its people, it rings more of a rational decision to do what he did than an unstable one.
Your dot . . . dot . . . dot implication seems to leave what you call pillorying out of the "full story". He was "pilloried" by his fellow soldiers, then and now, more than by anybody else.
The Devil's Advocate persisting beyond reason becomes . . . how do you put it . . . vapid.