The implications of a war of choice

This time from the Times:

A few minutes later, a soldier from the Idaho National Guard's 116th Armor Cavalry Brigade asked Mr. Rumsfeld what he and the Army were doing 'to address shortages and antiquated equipment' National Guard soldiers heading to Iraq were struggling with.

Mr. Rumsfeld seemed taken aback by the question and a murmur began spreading through the ranks before he silenced them. 'Now settle down, settle down,' he said. 'Hell, I'm an old man, it's early in the morning and I'm gathering my thoughts here.'

He said all organizations had equipment, materials and spare parts of different vintages, but he expressed confidence that Army leaders were assigning the newest and best equipment to the troops headed for combat who needed it most.

Nonetheless, he warned that equipment shortages would probably continue to bedevil some American forces entering combat zones like Iraq. 'You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time,' Mr. Rumsfeld said.

That is true - in a war of defense. When circumstances thrust a nation into war, there is no chance to make preparations. The army you have is the one you fight with.

Completely different is a war of choice - which the war in Iraq is. For all the deceptive talk of "grave and gathering threats," Saddam and his regime were never a threat to the United States in the way that Japan was on December 7, 1941. The United States was not thrust into war in Iraq - our leaders chose to send our troops into battle, knowing full well what the state of their readiness was.

So, the situation - whatever Mr. Rumsfeld believes - is pretty simple: (1) The United States did not need to go to war against Iraq. (2) For various reasons, the Bush administration believed that it would be in America's best interest to go to war anyway. (3) Our troops did not have the armor that would be needed should they be sent to war.

With these three facts in mind, there are only two morally conscionable courses of action: Either delay the start of any war of choice until proper preparations can be made, or find other ways besides military action of achieving the administrations aims. The one course of action that is completely inexcusable is to KNOWINGLY start an unnecessary war when our troops do not have the provisions they need to wage such a war as safely as possible.

This is, sickeningly, the precise course of action Rumsfeld and his bosses chose.

Three cheers for the soldiers who are holding the secretary and the administration responsible for their actions. This administration has treated with reckless indifference the lives of the men and women who serve in uniform, abusing their loyalty to their nation and to their commander in chief in the worst way possible. The blood of those who have been killed in unarmored or poorly-armored equipment is on the hands of Bush, Rumsfeld, and every other administration official who chose to send our troops into this fiasco.

Start asking the hard questions about George Bush's war. Our troops in Iraq aren't afraid to challenge the Secretary of Defense... why on earth should we be? Or perhaps it's a matter of laziness - we're content to slap little yellow ribbon magnets on our SUVs, but God forbid we actually think for a moment or two, or hold our leaders accountable for their actions.

Support our troops, indeed! Support them when they ask these hard questions! Their lives are on the line.