Another example of political involvement, this time in Afghanistan: Troops not allowed to engage the enemy if they put down their weapon, even temporarily. Al Quaida/Taliban fighters would deliberately taunt US forces, take a few shots, set there weapons down, then reposition. Who asks there military to fight with one hand tied behind their back? Only the US.
Scoutdog - It is true that terrible things happen during war. I say good. It's not supposed to be nice and neat. It should be so terrible that it is always the option of last resort, but when it does happen it should be decisive. Because so many precautions are taken to protect civilians, and despots are willing to exploit these causalities to a sympathetic world with propaganda, we can count on more of these types of actions in the future. The enemies base of support is now off limits and many don't seem to mind opposing forces duking it out. Personally, I prefer a president that has experienced the horrors of war. At least they fully understand what they might have to ask our men and women to do.
The usual line. I don't have nearly the time or energy to nitpick everything you get wrong here, so I'll just say in general that the kill-'em-all, soldiers-first approach is exactly why criminal/guerilla organizationslike the Taliban and Al Quaeda are so powerful. They feed off of unnecessary force and turn it into a recruiting tool, and they're not afraid to die as long as that makes them into a rallying point for others. That's why the military can never win a "war on terror", unless it learns to value the lives of civilians just as much as it values the lives of its goons.
(See my previous definition of "the military" to avoid any confusion).
