Stories continue to roll in of soldiers who are losing their lives by fighting a type of warfare we tried in Vietnam to no avail. The story of Army Staff Sergeant Matthew Sitton is one such example. He was KIA on August 2, 2012, after spending months warning his superiors and Congress that the style of warfare he and his men were being forced to undertake was as pointless as it was dangerous.
On June 4, Sitton wrote Rep. Bill Young (R-FL) to describe the conditions under which he was fighting and the types of duties he and his men were being asked to undertake.
In that correspondence, SSG Sitton wrote:
I feel myself and my soldiers are being put into unnecessary positions where harm and danger are imminent. There is no...purpose for the patrols given to us for our chain of command, only that we will be out for a certain time period. We are walking around aimlessly through grape rows and compounds that are littered with explosives.
Again, this is limited war at its best, which is limited war at its worst . . .
Read the rest of it HERE
A truism of mine is that the stupidest thing a nation finding itself engaged in a war, is to do anything less than 100% of what it takes to win that war.
In other words, to do anything less than commit to 100% victory is a war crime against the warriors committed to that war - and in this case I point the finger at the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. We all know who I'm talking about.
This thing in Afghanistan stopped being a war the second NATO got involved and the objective morphed into "nation building."
- STORMBRINGER SENDS
No comments:
Post a Comment