>>I was skeptical about the Wikipedia for quite a while, for exactly the reason you state. My opinion has changed. There is in fact a lot of oversight. Bogus edits are quickly jumped on by members and removed. A guy who used to be a UT regular -- sorry, blanking on his name, down in Miami -- is one of the many monitors. (Now I remember -- Alex Feldstein).
>>
>>If you want to say you think my political opinions are baloney, that is your right. Just please don't say I have been critical of soldiers. Even in wars I have thought were wrong, like Iraq, I have always respected the men and women who served in them.
>
>
>This is my last post on the issue and since you fail to read what is written, I'll SPELL IT OUT for you. You haven't denigrated soldiers as far as I can tell, but you heap BS on the military and its "brass".... the military IS THE SOLDIER, they are inseparable. You can't disparage one without attacking the other. That is my point. I hope that this makes it quite easy for you to understand...

Sorry John, but I disagree with you. Soldier NOT == Military. Soldier is a component of the military. There are several other components such as

Policy Makers - the President as CINC, as well as political appointees such as Sec, Under-Sec of Defense/Army/Navy, etc.

DOD - the large civil service component responsible for a great deal of the logistical support

"The Big Brass" - Very high ranking (3 star and above in my mind) officer corps who devise the stragegy to perform the missions assigned by the Policy Makers. They also advise the policy makers on the feasibilty of performing those missions.

I can certainly disparage the policy makers and big brass who set impossible tasks for political reasons, fail to forsee the consequences of their actions, and fail to provide proper support. I can do that without in any way disparaging the soldier who bears the brunt of implementing these decisions.