Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Heavy Metal wrote:
My advice is if you want to win a war you keep the damn politicians out of it and let the Generals do the fighting. Then again when politicians try to play war from a lofty office chair like so many armchair generals and when the actual generals become sycophantic bureaucrats and politicians then we're becoming as inept and incompetent as Europe.

In this country, we have civilian control of the military, which is proper because war is inherently political. It feels like you're arguing for some kind of military-run, unelected dictatorship or at least military autonomy. That idea would probably horrify the founding fathers, who are fromm an era where there was no permanent standing army.

 Ouze wrote:

Heavy Metal wrote:
My advice is if you want to win a war you keep the damn politicians out of it and let the Generals do the fighting. Then again when politicians try to play war from a lofty office chair like so many armchair generals and when the actual generals become sycophantic bureaucrats and politicians then we're becoming as inept and incompetent as Europe.

In this country, we have civilian control of the military, which is proper because war is inherently political. It feels like you're arguing for some kind of military-run, unelected dictatorship or at least military autonomy. That idea would probably horrify the founding fathers, who are fromm an era where there was no permanent standing army.

Frankly, if you think anyone being promoted from Colonel to higher is anything but political you are dreaming.

From the military perspective, it sucks to be controlled by civilians, but that's the way it has to be or we'd be just another military dictatorship with the military doing coups like they were going out of style.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

Please show me a modern example of a people going from a barbaric culture to a civilized one without a third party crushing them and forcing it upon them.

The Brits in New Zealand?


The problem here though, is that in my two tours, the areas where I was (spent a ton of time in/around Sadr City the second go round) has shown me that the extremists really aren't all that extreme, and that most people felt the same way, but only a few were bold enough to act on those feelings.

The tribal chiefs literally run the place like the Godfather, and so half the time, when we gave a baker a "microgrant" to get him on his feet, he'd turn around and pay 90% of that (dont really know.. but it definitely had the appearance that it was a sizable chunk of what we gave) to his Sheik, who could/would usually turn around and pay the local bomb-maker, unless that Sheik was actually fairly friendly to us (and that was usually because we gave him a ton of money, or fixed utilities/public works that he owned). I mean, if you want to talk about politicians being owned by corporations or rich donors, etc. these guys make ours look like absolute saints.

Sure, it sucks that we've already "lost" everything we fought for, but the way I see it, we never really won, and I'd much rather give the same fate to Afghanistan than have any more Americans/allies die for "nothing" It's fairly clear that Islam is not the peaceful religion that certain people claim it is, so it's better for us to sit back, and let them wipe themselves out than to try and play referee.

THIS of all things. Let their god sort them out.

So what do you "experts" think Iraq will look like in 20 years?....40 years?

With Saddam gone, will it become part of Iran as a new ME super state?

GG

This has been the best explanation for the borders in the ME that I have seen yet:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-4-2013/sir-archibald-mapsalot-iii

 generalgrog wrote:
So what do you "experts" think Iraq will look like in 20 years?....40 years?

With Saddam gone, will it become part of Iran as a new ME super state?

GG

Heh. I think the majority Sunni population of Iraq will have something to say about being absorbed into the majority Shia Iran.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
So what do you "experts" think Iraq will look like in 20 years?....40 years?

With Saddam gone, will it become part of Iran as a new ME super state?

GG

Heh. I think the majority Sunni population of Iraq will have something to say about being absorbed into the majority Shia Iran.

Yeah, and those are called civil wars. One side has to lose those.

GG

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
So what do you "experts" think Iraq will look like in 20 years?....40 years?

With Saddam gone, will it become part of Iran as a new ME super state?

GG

Heh. I think the majority Sunni population of Iraq will have something to say about being absorbed into the majority Shia Iran.

Actually, it's the Shi'ite minority in Iraq. And if the borders don't change at all, the Sunni's, IMO, will likely try the Darfur route to become the ONLY religious/political/ethnic group represented in Iraq... Of course, the problem with that is, the Yezidi an other Kurdish groups are damn near impossible to kill off.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Aren't a lot of these countries relics of European Imperialism, arbitrarily drawn up on the map with little regard to historical boundaries of previous nation states, ethnic distribution and tribal loyalties?

Yes, they are. Or rather, they are relics of Ottoman Imperialism filtered through the post-WW1 League Of Nations system. The whole middle east used to be part of the Ottoman Empire. Some of it gradually split away due to local causes. The Ottoman Empire was another casualty of WW1, creating a power vacuum which was filled largely by the victorious powers of France and Britain.

Ouze wrote:

Heavy Metal wrote:
My advice is if you want to win a war you keep the damn politicians out of it and let the Generals do the fighting. Then again when politicians try to play war from a lofty office chair like so many armchair generals and when the actual generals become sycophantic bureaucrats and politicians then we're becoming as inept and incompetent as Europe.

In this country, we have civilian control of the military, which is proper because war is inherently political. It feels like you're arguing for some kind of military-run, unelected dictatorship or at least military autonomy. That idea would probably horrify the founding fathers, who are fromm an era where there was no permanent standing army.

Ah, now we're getting into an interesting subject,

I think Robert A. Heinlein, the author who wrote some of my favorite scifi novels, 'Starship Troopers' had the idea if you want to serve in office you have to do a tour of duty in the military. That way these type of representatives would be veterans and will know first hand the horrors of war and wouldn't throw away the lives of active duty soldiers needlessly like a politician who never served let alone handle a firearm in their life. I know that will have some of you freaking out "ermagerd dictatorship!" but in my defense the first democracies were made up of citizen soldiers and 9 times out of 10 those soldiers who aged out of the military served public office. The Greek City states and the Roman Republic are good historical references I would think. And I'll admit my history is a bit rusty in that area.

I realize though in reality that idea from Heinlein will not happen, not in our bleeding heart society we've turned into. This ain't our father's America anymore where we didn't flinch at great adversity or have an idiotic president making boasts only to retract from it. We've become too soft for our own good. We've become like Europe: gutless, lazy and incompetent and having to depend on other nations to keep our habits afloat.

As for a standing army in this day and age we cannot afford to do what we did in the past is to muster a large army in time of need and disband it during peace time. Not when we have powerful adversaries like China and Russia doing their saber rattling and having rogue nations like North Korea and Iran going nuclear. There is historical proof this habit of disbanding and mustering armies costs more lives than necessary all because there were those few fearing a standing army. As a devout Jeffersonian I still believe centralized banks and big governments are more dangerous than standing armies. That is a fact, Jack!

However my politics in some areas are a bit polarized. I like a standing army here at home to protect our borders but I do not believe it is our right and our place for that matter to be the world's policemen. Why do we need over 100 military bases across the world? I strongly disaprove the arrogance of our government's intrusive foreign policies. Yes I'm talking to you NSA.

A couple of points-
People on the forum were surprised or disparaging when the US was touted as the country others felt was the greatest threat to world security. Despite that, many americans on this forum feel comfortable talking casually about nuking other countries, or my favorite term, "glassing" them. This is fairly frightening, the idea that you have the power, and the will or desire, to simply wipe an entire people off the map. I can understand fear of americans, when I see things like that being said. Might be worth considering what you're saying a little more carefully on what is an international forum.

Second, I dislike the use of the term "barbarian" as it is here. It's really dehumanising. Also the idea that we should "impose" civilization on the barbarians. Perhaps it's because I'm Irish, and we got plenty of that from the British over the years, but I am skeptical of that sort of thinking- I think it's pretty simplistic and leads to some nasty conclusions.

 Da Boss wrote:
A couple of points-
People on the forum were surprised or disparaging when the US was touted as the country others felt was the greatest threat to world security. Despite that, many americans on this forum feel comfortable talking casually about nuking other countries, or my favorite term, "glassing" them. This is fairly frightening, the idea that you have the power, and the will or desire, to simply wipe an entire people off the map. I can understand fear of americans, when I see things like that being said. Might be worth considering what you're saying a little more carefully on what is an international forum.

Second, I dislike the use of the term "barbarian" as it is here. It's really dehumanising. Also the idea that we should "impose" civilization on the barbarians. Perhaps it's because I'm Irish, and we got plenty of that from the British over the years, but I am skeptical of that sort of thinking- I think it's pretty simplistic and leads to some nasty conclusions.

As an American who served two combat tours in Iraq, I agree with this statement whole heartedly. "Civilizing" people who don't want to be "civilized" has never really turned out very well for either side.

Also, the talk of using nukes to wipe out the entire civilian population is flat out evil and that's not a word I use lightly. Want to know what I saw in Iraq? Most people were just people. Not monsters. They just wanted to live out their lives and make a better life for their children than they had. They didn't care about politics or jihad or anything like that. They were more concerned with feeding their families and maybe having a little fun occasionally. To advocate wiping out an entire population because some fanatics have taken charge is worse than what the fanatics advocate.

 MWHistorian wrote:
As an American who served two combat tours in Iraq, I agree with this statement whole heartedly. "Civilizing" people who don't want to be "civilized" has never really turned out very well for either side.

I could've sworn this thread already covered Rome and why that statement is far from accurate.

 Seaward wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
As an American who served two combat tours in Iraq, I agree with this statement whole heartedly. "Civilizing" people who don't want to be "civilized" has never really turned out very well for either side.

I could've sworn this thread already covered Rome and why that statement is far from accurate.

When Rome tried to "Civilize" Barbarians that didn't want to be civilized they got either insurgencies on their hands or outright kicked out. The Britons for the most part welcomed them in (with a few exceptions like Boudica and looked how that turned out.) and even then it wasn't really profitable for the Romans and eventually left. Most of the people Rome conquered and made into Romans were other civilized societies such as the Carthegenians and Egyptians. Also, I still fail to see how nuking the Mid-East (not taking into effect the fall out politically and literally) could be anything but evil.

I've said it before and it is unfortunate, but some countries will only work with a dictatorship. It's no difference to a domestic that the police have to deal with. Husband & wife are close to killing each other, the police turn up and get involved, the couple unite against the police. It's a simple comparison but true.

Lets put Mr Cynic to one side and say that are motives were pure when we went into Iraq, there was nothing we could of done that would of fixed it. The big bad was gone, so they now unite against us because we are foreign infidel dogs. The Middle Eastern culture will never truly have democracy in the way we have, it just won't work. Religion is too ingrained into their culture and the Mullahs will never give up power. They either rule, are placated or suppressed, they don't just sit there providing spiritual support and guidance.

As to the nonsense that Muslims don't kill Muslims, we know that is complete rubbish. If you're the wrong type of Muslim, in the wrong area you are a valid target. It's pure and simply down to having power.

 MWHistorian wrote:
When Rome tried to "Civilize" Barbarians that didn't want to be civilized they got either insurgencies on their hands or outright kicked out. The Britons for the most part welcomed them in (with a few exceptions like Boudica and looked how that turned out.) and even then it wasn't really profitable for the Romans and eventually left. Most of the people Rome conquered and made into Romans were other civilized societies such as the Carthegenians and Egyptians.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree with that, citing France, Spain, most of southern Europe, etc.

Also, I still fail to see how nuking the Mid-East (not taking into effect the fall out politically and literally) could be anything but evil.

I don't recall advocating doing so.

 Seaward wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
When Rome tried to "Civilize" Barbarians that didn't want to be civilized they got either insurgencies on their hands or outright kicked out. The Britons for the most part welcomed them in (with a few exceptions like Boudica and looked how that turned out.) and even then it wasn't really profitable for the Romans and eventually left. Most of the people Rome conquered and made into Romans were other civilized societies such as the Carthegenians and Egyptians.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree with that, citing France, Spain, most of southern Europe, etc.

Also, I still fail to see how nuking the Mid-East (not taking into effect the fall out politically and literally) could be anything but evil.

I don't recall advocating doing so.

You got me there, Caesar did have to crack a few skulls in his Gallic campaigns. But even then there were plenty of tribes willing to ally with Rome in exchange for power.

Heavy Metal wrote:

However my politics in some areas are a bit polarized. I like a standing army here at home to protect our borders but I do not believe it is our right and our place for that matter to be the world's policemen. Why do we need over 100 military bases across the world?

Having been stationed in Germany, I definitely see why places like Ramstein AFB and Lanstuhl are there. Their strategic value is too great to "abandon", even if we were to sign a treaty that said the Germans must keep and maintain those two places. I cannot speak to the necessity of bases in Japan, South Korea, Australia, etc. But many of the bases we have on foreign soil are there as part of some past treaty, or as they pose such strategic value that we just cannot feasibly get rid of them.

 Da Boss wrote:
A couple of points-
People on the forum were surprised or disparaging when the US was touted as the country others felt was the greatest threat to world security. Despite that, many americans on this forum feel comfortable talking casually about nuking other countries, or my favorite term, "glassing" them. This is fairly frightening, the idea that you have the power, and the will or desire, to simply wipe an entire people off the map. I can understand fear of americans, when I see things like that being said. Might be worth considering what you're saying a little more carefully on what is an international forum.

Keep in mind that only the President has the authority to use *nukes* in any conflict (except for maybe some MAD doctrine?).

But, I do agree that there are some of us are waaaay to cavalier about using instraments of destruction (nukes, mass bombing, drones, etc...). Chaulk this up as ignorance as the vast majority of the people don't truly understand what it means when going to war.

Second, I dislike the use of the term "barbarian" as it is here. It's really dehumanising. Also the idea that we should "impose" civilization on the barbarians. Perhaps it's because I'm Irish, and we got plenty of that from the British over the years, but I am skeptical of that sort of thinking- I think it's pretty simplistic and leads to some nasty conclusions.

It's just a bad form of stereotyping...

It's just that the evil acts perpetuated by these folks are barbaric, as it assaults our sense of civilization. In fact, throw all evil-doers into that "barbaric" bucket, regardless of race, religion, creed, etc...

Now... I hope you don't mind the word neanderthal... that's ME!

Da Boss wrote:A couple of points-
People on the forum were surprised or disparaging when the US was touted as the country others felt was the greatest threat to world security. Despite that, many americans on this forum feel comfortable talking casually about nuking other countries, or my favorite term, "glassing" them. This is fairly frightening, the idea that you have the power, and the will or desire, to simply wipe an entire people off the map. I can understand fear of americans, when I see things like that being said. Might be worth considering what you're saying a little more carefully on what is an international forum.

Second, I dislike the use of the term "barbarian" as it is here. It's really dehumanising. Also the idea that we should "impose" civilization on the barbarians. Perhaps it's because I'm Irish, and we got plenty of that from the British over the years, but I am skeptical of that sort of thinking- I think it's pretty simplistic and leads to some nasty conclusions.

I'm sure people other than just Americans talk about nuking other countries, who doesn't? You know the Russians are itching to hurl a nuke or two, hell they got more nukes than anyone. I hate to say it but even in our modern world that is supposedly more civilized you still have the "barbarians" wanting to cause trouble. I will use that term because I'm not afraid to call a spade a spade, so I apologize if I damage your delicate sensibilities of the matter.

Not saying it is any of our places, especially my country, to be “nation building” or “civilize” other countries but when a nation harbors people who want to kill us, mainly any of us from the west or whoever they label infidel (which is almost everyone) because we don’t bow our heads to Mecca five times a day then I think more than nation building is in need. I’ll leave it at that before I incur the wrath of moderators.
An international forum or not I'll consider the reality conflict exists everywhere and in many forms. If it isn't Russia bullying its regional neighbors like Georgia it is Iran wanting to wipe Israel off the map or the North Koreans shelling their Southern neighbors because Kim Jun Un is having a bad day. Then again my country has the NSA snooping into other people's business so I have no delusions that only my country is always right. I think throughout history whether it was yesterday or over 100 years ago our countries has done something to step on someone else’s toes just as you said about the British were privy to impose their will upon the Irish and the Scots, my ancestors. The main thing is where do we draw the line? I think when you kill thousands of innocent people because someone promised you 72 virgins and that you hate a nation’s lifestyle then you crossed the line beyond restraint and I think you should pay the price with fire and fury. That’s just me and if that makes me out to be a heartless and cruel person then so be it.

MWHistorian wrote:
As an American who served two combat tours in Iraq, I agree with this statement whole heartedly. "Civilizing" people who don't want to be "civilized" has never really turned out very well for either side.

Also, the talk of using nukes to wipe out the entire civilian population is flat out evil and that's not a word I use lightly. Want to know what I saw in Iraq? Most people were just people. Not monsters. They just wanted to live out their lives and make a better life for their children than they had. They didn't care about politics or jihad or anything like that. They were more concerned with feeding their families and maybe having a little fun occasionally. To advocate wiping out an entire population because some fanatics have taken charge is worse than what the fanatics advocate.

I know someone like you who have served in the line of duty don’t take lightly the notion of going to war unprovoked and wiping out entire civilian populations via nukes but I look at history to determine when and where to draw the lines as nations. This is where you and I may come to logger heads.

“Civilized” in its use is a bit archaic to me since it’s the same as nation building. Personally I don’t see the point of going to Iraq and Afghanistan to get bogged down in nation building just to wipe out the vermin that started this war. What was to be a simple job was to go in kill the bad guys and get the heck out has turned into a political mess reminiscent of the Vietnam War. Revisionist history is for the birds, politicians are idiots and you veterans don’t get the gratitude for what you do.

In WW II the doctrine of total war was used where both sides bombed civilian populations (except us, we were largely unscathed) and military complexes indiscriminately. It was necessary and at the same time unnecessary but war is horrible that way and brings the worse out of human nature. General Robert E. Lee said it right “it is well war is so terrible otherwise we should grow too fond of it.” You have personal accounts of what all transpired there yet it is difficult for most of us here at home to distinguish the fanatics from the regular folk since there is a lack of rejection of the radicals by these so-called moderates. Call me skeptical but I have reason not to give Iraqis or anyone else in that part of the world the benefit of the doubt. Not saying everyone in Iraq are monsters but they don’t make an effort to help themselves to convince otherwise.

I really think if the radicals get their way no thanks to these sycophantic politicians they would love nothing more to turn any of the major US cities into glass parking lots if they get the chance and they won't stop there, they've been itching to roll over Europe for a long time. As horrible as it sounds I think when it boils down to the choice between us and them to endure I choose us. I say we wipe them off the face of the earth. If that makes me a bad person then so be it. I'm not coming down to their level, it's survival and a means to preserve our way of life.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Heavy Metal wrote:

However my politics in some areas are a bit polarized. I like a standing army here at home to protect our borders but I do not believe it is our right and our place for that matter to be the world's policemen. Why do we need over 100 military bases across the world?

Having been stationed in Germany, I definitely see why places like Ramstein AFB and Lanstuhl are there. Their strategic value is too great to "abandon", even if we were to sign a treaty that said the Germans must keep and maintain those two places. I cannot speak to the necessity of bases in Japan, South Korea, Australia, etc. But many of the bases we have on foreign soil are there as part of some past treaty, or as they pose such strategic value that we just cannot feasibly get rid of them.

I do not doubt these bases have their importance and maybe they can be exceptions but don’t you think some of these treaties are bit dated? I understand the need to have bases in Germany because with Putin and his old guard bringing back the ol’ Soviet days it is a deterrence to keep the angry bear at bay. South Korea I’m a bit iffy because the latest SK administration isn’t exactly friendly even with NK having its tantrums. Japan amended their constitution so we’re no longer needed there and they’ve been wanted to kick us out for a long time plus let them deal with future Chinese aggression at their own expense. Taiwan is the only place I think we need a presence as a deterrence against Chinese expansionism. Speaking of old treaties I’m sure the UK will come to their old colony’s aid if they’re in trouble so I don’t see a need of a base there plus I take it the Aussies don’t really want us there anyway like so many others...

I think we can no longer afford to have bases everywhere like before. I can understand the importance of places like Germany but the other hundred or so bases we have across the globe? It seems to be an unnecessary expense to maintain an empire like the empires of the past has done and look how that turned out. Correct me if I am wrong but would it be cheaper to dispatch carrier fleets at trouble spots rather than maintaining all these bases? Going by Sun Tzu “he defends everything, defends nothing.” Fluid defense would be more cost effective, but I could be wrong.

I love seeing the fascists and authoritarians come out of the woodwork in these types of threads.

It makes me happy!

The "Well they don't really want us there" tends to come from the people in the area just being miffed about troopers going and doing stupid stuff, getting in trouble, ect. The usual reasons.

I'll tell you right know those countries governments want, Its added protection, a boosts to their economy, and deters any potential invader/aggressors.


And if you think we have bases in germany NOW to keep "Russia" in check your being silly, we have bases in germany because the germans want us there and they serve as a good middle point to deploy from.


The cold war is over, stop hyping Russia and China up as the big enemy. China will destory itself with its reckless industry.

Heavy Metal, I think when someone wants to kill you it's worth looking at their motivations and trying to figure out why. I'm not sure you've done that to a great extent, based on your posts.

I also think dividing the world up into "good guys" and "bad guys" is a really simplistic and wrong headed approach.

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

In Iraq and Afghanistan, it went from defeating the Taliban/Al Q to nation building, democracy, women's rights, Middle East Stability etc etc

Nobody knew what the feth was going on half the time.

I've always believed that the military are at their best when they have a clear, defined objective - capture that hill or defeat this country etc etc. But they had nothing to work with.

Good points. What we should expect from the Pres and our congress critters is to lay out clear national level strategic objectives for what ever conflict they are getting us into. Bonus points if they can relate those objectives to our national interest. Then they should decide if they are willing to allocate the resources needed to achieve those objectives, and lay out the cost of not meeting those objectives.

If the objectives change, or cannot be met, they need to decide the trigger point to stop allocating resources and get out of the conflict, or the leaders need to sell the new objectives to the American people along with the costs to achieve them and the costs of not achieving them. Again, bonus points f they can relate them to our national interests.

On the military side, our strategic leaders need to show they clearly understand the national objectives and create and run campaigns and operations designed to achieve those objectives. They need to turn those national objectives into properly resourced and executable actions. They need to be able to communicate to the civilian elected leadership how they intend to achieve the objectives.

Seeing bad guys retake ground you fought for is never good, but the reality is it became the Iraqi government's responsibility to figure out how to keep their country running as we were leaving and after we left. They knew what was up.

Exactly. At the beginning of the invasion everybody knew what to do - defeat the Iraqi army, capture Baghdad, and grab Saddam.

The problems started later. Soldiers who were trained to blow up buildings and infrastructure were suddenly expected to be able to fix them. Was never going to happen.

And of course, that great great mystery: why the hell did Bremmer fire 300,000 Iraqi army/police personnel? Why? Why?

I'm pretty sure the US could have rushed emergency funds to pay them for 6 months. If they wanted a clean start, they could have kept the old guys in whilst they gradually phased them out with newer recruits.

Others may disagree, but I'm convinced that led to the deaths of at least 1000 US service personnel.

 Breotan wrote:
Civilization as we know it today was created because the Romans ruthlessly pushed it down people's throats and killed anyone who didn't comply. The other example is China, which also ruthlessly oppressed anyone who wouldn't comply. It's a rough way to civilize people but recent history shows that it pretty much requires something like this.

Please show me a modern example of a people going from a barbaric culture to a civilized one without a third party crushing them and forcing it upon them.

Depending on your definition of "barbaric" and "civilized", all of Eastern Europe post-1989?

Yeah, the firing of the Iraqi security personnel always confused me. Can someone shed some more light on that decision?

 Easy E wrote:
Yeah, the firing of the Iraqi security personnel always confused me. Can someone shed some more light on that decision?

In hindsight, it was probably a mistake.

The issue was, if I remember right, where their loyalty lies...

Heavy Metal wrote:
I think Robert A. Heinlein, the author who wrote some of my favorite scifi novels, 'Starship Troopers' had the idea if you want to serve in office you have to do a tour of duty in the military. That way these type of representatives would be veterans and will know first hand the horrors of war and wouldn't throw away the lives of active duty soldiers needlessly like a politician who never served let alone handle a firearm in their life.

John McCain was a war veteran, and never saw a foreign conflict he didn't want to entangle us in, from Libya to Syria to Iran. Some of our most mediocre presidents were military men, and one of our greatest - the man who won the largest military conflict our country ever fought - never served. JFK's wartime experiences led him to escalate the war in Vietnam and to bring us to the bring of nuclear annihilation with the Soviet Union (when he found the time for this between affairs, one wonders).

There is little evidence to support the idea that military service is a good indicator of a skilled president.

It wasn't a loyalty issue, it was a anti-Baathist issue. It was misguided part of an attempt to remove Baathists from any position of power/responsibility/influence and destroy Baathist organizations and institutions.