[quote=cvk][quote]How valid is that criticism when applied to a soldier?
Mind you I don’t necessarily disagree but the purpose of the military is to follow orders and enact policy of the civilian leaders, not to think critically or create policy themselves.
He was a part of the civilian leadership at the time you mention but that was not his background.
[/quote]
You’re correct, he wasn’t a soldier at the time, so the criticism is entirely valid.
But even if he were still a soldier, he’d still be culpable.
The concept that soldiers are free of consequences for their actions provided that they are following orders from superiors was thrown out in WW2 when german soldiers tried to use it to escape responsibility for their roles in the ethnic cleansing of the jews. [/quote]
Okay but gas chambers are a far cry from following US rules of engagement (as a soldier) let alone debating your boss on dealing with a country you think has WMD’s (as a civilian adminstrator).
For the record: I can’t believe you have me defending the Iraq war.
I mean you can’t advise soldiers that they are paid to kill and that they will be charged for following orders. You just have to say when some types of killing are inappropriate and out of bounds.
Similarly, the dude towed the party line as an administrator (which was his job) and then quit when it got sufficiently bad (which is appropriate in an administrative position). The only valid criticism I see here is that he did his job by towing the line and then not quitting soon enough.
Again, I can’t believe you are putting me in a situation to defend a pro-war position.