As to the war, while it is always thought rash to have any strong military convictions, I have always believed that if they would go straight to Sebastopol early in the season they would take it with little difficulty.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
In spite of certain distressing but isolated occurrences in the last battle, I certainly hoped that the Army would be in a position to continue to hold out.
As I have been saying for more than a year now, turning this vital mission over to the Iraqi people as soon as possible should remain a topic of debate for Congress while relying on our military commanders to set up the timetable.
Nor should the U.S. military be forced to remain in Iraq essentially as an army for one side of a civil war.
If it wasn't for the military I probably would not have ever come to Bosnia for vacation.
Anyway the war is over so far as they are concerned. But to wait for dysentery is not much of a life either.
Before they deploy, they train for the specific operations, but there is a danger that the Army is not retaining the core of its full capabilities.
I think what both Republicans and Democrats need to do and the leaders on both sides is to recognize that if sequester takes place, it would be disastrous for our national defense and very frankly for a lot of very important domestic programs. They have a responsibility to come together, find the money necessary to de-trigger sequester.
Our soldiers have done a valiant effort in fighting terrorism and bringing a semblance of law and order to the chaos in the region and it would be shortsighted to lay out a specific timetable to bring U.S. troops home prematurely before their mission is accomplished.
My basic feeling about military intervention is that it should be a last resort, undertaken only to stave off large-scale bloodshed.
The fleet sailed to its war base in the North Sea, headed not so much for some rendezvous with glory as for rendezvous with discretion.