Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
The issue itself is well established. Your particular positions on the issue and your specific comments on the appropriate response for US personnel affected by the issue are entirely your opinions. Of course you're entitled to those opinions, but accusing those with other opinions of incompetence or lack of moral courage, and insinuating that they don't do what you think they should because they fear for their pensions, seems a bit uncalled for.
Lets start with the common debating tactic where when a sensitive issue is raised there is a tendency to try to turn it into and anti-American "attack" of sorts. Numerous times over the past few years I have suggested that this level of high-school level maturity in debate is out of place here where people should be encouraged to question and explore.

Shooting the messenger is another immature debating tactic which is seen way too often around here.

But I digress...

Once again you attempt disingenuously to present what I have posted on this issue as purely my opinion. The quote from your General Harold K. Johnson indicates that he believes there was a moral courage dilemma in his career and he made the wrong choice. There are others who have attempted to argue that any such display of moral courage would not have changed anything. Tolerating cowardice is quite frankly shocking and there should be not such debate among the officer corps.

It may indeed not affect the military but it sure affected the good general because as he said:

" I am now going to my grave with that lapse in moral courage on my back."

Come on... you know your way around Google tell me what pathology a "lack of conscience" may indicate?

There are many problems that have significant negative impacts on the situation in Afghanistan, and many of those problems trace back to political decisions. That's an inherent facet of any military culture that accepts civilian supremacy, especially, as Ken has so often and accurately pointed out, in conflicts that are not perceived as existential threats.
I am talking about this one in particular.

Yes, that's what you said. It was pointed out subsequently that they would not in any event "lose their pensions", which are protected by law. They might have to take a slightly smaller pension, a quite different thing and, given the financial opportunities available in the private sector, not a very compelling factor. The only point to this is that there's really no reason to suppose that anyone has a craven financial motive for not doing as you think they ought.
LOL... now you attempt to spin your way out of the hole you dug for yourself.

Now that you are an expert on military pensions do tell me what happens to a major with 15 years service if he resigns for whatever reason?

You're the one who offered the opinion that "salary and earnings", in the form of a pension, are a factor in individuals not doing what you think they ought to do. I merely pointed out that if that sort of mercenarism really is in play, the logical decision would be to make a large and visible issue out of whatever is bothering you and parlay the media coverage into an attractive private sector billet. Resigning in public protest is not going to change the system, but it will buy 15 minutes of fame and can be an astute career move.
More spin.

What price moral courage?

It is indeed unlikely that a resignation on the grounds of conscience would change much... but that not why those with character, principle and the courage of their convictions resign. They do it so as to be able to live with themselves. This is obviously an area that you have no understanding of.

.