Comments on: Rockefeller’s Apology Doesn’t Excuse Washington Culture

By: Lucy Melton

Lucy Melton — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:54:48 +0000

thanks for sharing

By: Jose Ramones

Jose Ramones — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:23:46 +0000

great blog!

By: Patricia W Olson

Patricia W Olson — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:47:54 +0000

tu blog es excelente! te mando 499 felicitaciones!

By: Carole J Takeshita

Carole J Takeshita — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:33:55 +0000

great article!, grats for u site

By: information on bulimia

information on bulimia — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:32:47 +0000

nice article! nice site. you're in my rss feed now
keep it up

By: josephjsalas

josephjsalas — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:15:00 +0000

Reason 2 has long been satisfied...............

The UN quickly breaks down into World Bank and the International

Monetary Fund (IMF). Though through military force instead of

Wall Street stealth, WB/IMF has gahered Iraq's independence (oil),

court houses and economy just like they did with the US 75 years ago

with public laws 89-719 and 94-564.

Hmm!

By: piniella

piniella — Thu, 01 May 2008 06:11:08 +0000

To follow-up on Wolfboy's first comment, both Karzai and Maliki have complained that U.S. air power has indiscriminately killed civilians.

By: piniella

piniella — Thu, 01 May 2008 06:09:03 +0000

I suspect that a lot of the millions of tons we dropped on SE Asia during the Vietnam War weren't done in the most caring manner.

By: wolfboy

wolfboy — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:36:28 +0000

The Washington Independent has not corrected Gregg Easterbrook's military inacuracies!

By: oldnavyguy

oldnavyguy — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:40:17 +0000

Mr. Easterbrook should know about Washington culture as this type of condescending "gotcha" on military terminology or accuracy is always one that pro-war defense mavens like to use. I was regular Navy for over 22 years and there is nothing more disgusting than Washington-based military "experts" from Brookings or AEI or the Council on Foreign Relations–all military wannabes without the cajones to actually serve–defending their turf, which is what this is. Rockefeller's point that air power–dropping bombs from the air–somewhat removes the pilot from the humanity being bombed is a long-standing military debate even within the military community and one that can be contentious and heated. With the increasing use of technology which removes the warfighter from the battle and insulates him or her from the consequences of battle it is a serious ethical question. I would say that Mr. Rockefeller, having earned his bona fides on the ground through his work with Sargent Shriver in the Peace Corps in the Philippines, is probably on solid ground–more so than Mr. Easterbrook–in posing this ethical question given that Mr. McCain hasn't seen a war or conflict he hasn't liked. I have found that there is a species of Navy pilot that is vain and arrogant to the point of stupidity. Mr. McCain seems to fall into this category, regardless of the fact that he was shot down and a POW–something that he survived as any of us would try to do. Killing and surviving are elemental impulses borne of our instinct as a species and it can have unfortunate and tragic consequences. To actually reflect on that instinct and critique it, to me, takes more courage. Yes, it would have been nice had Mr. Rockefeller gotten the laser-guided part of the comment right but his point is as old as the debate of over Lidell-Hart's work on air power and the toll taken on the civilian populace by its application.