27 April 2010

The Difference

Some of you may have noticed a story that broke last week, in which two Soldiers who were present during the infamous Apache engagement in New Baghdad wrote a letter apologizing for the incident which killed two Reuters employees and wounded two children. (Wired.com has an exclusive interview)

Former Specialists Josh Stieber and Ethan McCord penned a touching missive to the people of Iraq, which, to some, seemed politically motivated and apologetic for the War in Iraq. Yet, these men's feeling are understandable. No Soldier wishes for war; especially those who have had to witness the screaming of children wounded in the crossfire. An apology is understandable. Certainly, there is no doubt that children were wounded and journalists were killed. Either this was an intentional case of murderous bloodlust (doubtful), or it was a regrettable, tragic accident brought about by the fog of war (likely).

If it was an accident--which most of us truly believe it was--an apology is in order. In fact, that's what separates us from vicious, barbaric organizations like al Qaeda in Iraq. Do you think they would apologize for beheadings and suicide bombings?

Read their statement and feel free to discuss. Do you think it's appropriate?


Lily said...

Yeah, was difficult not to notice.
I can understand that the two guys cracked up, but doing it in public and undermining what they once stood for is an act of treason.

moofie said...

Treason? That word...I do not think it means what you think it means. By what possible standard is that treason?