Gates says he wept every night for dead soldiers

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/01/13/262062882/gates-says-he-wept-each-evening-over-troops-deaths

Please read this article.  He describes a procedure that would make me definitely cry too.

The skinny:  He would pore over each soldier's personal lives before writing each family a letter of consolation, making sure to include details about that soldier.

I hate to be sarcastic about what Gates said, but if he'd thought about the lives of those soldiers before he sent them into wars that were unwinnable, he might not have had to write so many letters. Here's one of the comments he made:

"came to realize in the early spring of 2011 that my preoccupation, my priority had become protecting [the troops] from further sacrifice, perhaps at the expense of hard-headed objectivity in terms of the use of our military. And I was becoming emotional when I was around the troops and thinking about the troops. And all of that contributed to my decision on the specific timing that it was time to go."

He left the Pentagon in June 2011."

It's not any consolation that he finally realized American sons and daughters lives were involved in his "hard-headed" militaristic decisions.  Way too many of them had already died. At least he had his Road to Damascus. Millions of Americans still haven't, the POTUS included in those millions.
Otherwise we would have left Afghanistan long ago.

Was it his responsibility to send troops into war?  Yes, I understand he was the top dog in a military sense, but I don't think it was his decision to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.  In my mind, it was Presidents Bush (HW and W) with support of the US Congress and a multinational alliance.

Eric wrote:

Was it his responsibility to send troops into war?  Yes, I understand he was the top dog in a military sense, but I don't think it was his decision to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.  In my mind, it was Presidents Bush (HW and W) with support of the US Congress and a multinational alliance.

No, I don't think he was responsible for sending them there. That decision was always up to the POTUS. Bush would have probably gone with or without an IWR, even though we'll never know that for sure.

I'm just saying that he listened to his generals far too much. I always cringe when I hear our civilian leaders saying that they are taking the advice of the generals in so many situations. If Obama hadn't listened to our generals for so long we would have already been out of both Iraq and Afghanistan.

I know Harry Truman wasn't popular when he was in office, but at least he knew what the words Commander in Chief meant. He also knew that we have a civilian president as an alternative to a military dictatorship for a good reason.
Eisenhower was okay and seemed to know the reality of war, but most generals look for only a military solution to problems.
As they used to say in the 60's, that's hazardous to small animals and children.

Otter wrote:

I hate to be sarcastic about what Gates said, but if he'd thought about the lives of those soldiers before he sent them into wars that were unwinnable, he might not have had to write so many letters. Here's one of the comments he made:

Hmmm, after all these years and 20 years in the military I was always under the impression Presidents (Commander-in-Chiefs) with the concurrence and funding of Congress were responsible for sending troops into war. Turns out Gates was responsible all along eh? He wasn't even SecDef (2006-2011) during the initiation of those wars. Whether someone agrees or disagrees with a country's decision to enter a war once boots are on the ground it's imperative to do everything possible for the troops. Whatever his other warts or issues - Gates did that.

nochain wrote:

Otter wrote:

I hate to be sarcastic about what Gates said, but if he'd thought about the lives of those soldiers before he sent them into wars that were unwinnable, he might not have had to write so many letters. Here's one of the comments he made:

Hmmm, after all these years and 20 years in the military I was always under the impression Presidents (Commander-in-Chiefs) with the concurrence and funding of Congress were responsible for sending troops into war. Turns out Gates was responsible all along eh? He wasn't even SecDef (2006-2011) during the initiation of those wars. Whether someone agrees or disagrees with a country's decision to enter a war once boots are on the ground it's imperative to do everything possible for the troops. Whatever his other warts or issues - Gates did that.

And that's my biggest criticism of many in politics...yes have a debate...explain the different positions..opinions..etc., BUT once the boots are on the ground the troops are the priority and get what needs to be done done...and if you vote for military actions have the balls to stand behind your position and not retreat for political reason/opportunities...it's too bad that sending sons and daughters into harm's way isn't taken more serious...Another portion of the book stated that Sec Gates wanted to leave his position on several occassions but remained out of loyalty and commitment to the troops...kind of difficult to disagree or criticize that professionalism...

mediawatcher wrote:

nochain wrote:

Otter wrote:

I hate to be sarcastic about what Gates said, but if he'd thought about the lives of those soldiers before he sent them into wars that were unwinnable, he might not have had to write so many letters. Here's one of the comments he made:

Hmmm, after all these years and 20 years in the military I was always under the impression Presidents (Commander-in-Chiefs) with the concurrence and funding of Congress were responsible for sending troops into war. Turns out Gates was responsible all along eh? He wasn't even SecDef (2006-2011) during the initiation of those wars. Whether someone agrees or disagrees with a country's decision to enter a war once boots are on the ground it's imperative to do everything possible for the troops. Whatever his other warts or issues - Gates did that.

     And that's my biggest criticism of many in politics...yes have a debate...explain the different positions..opinions..etc., BUT once the boots are on the ground the troops are the priority and get what needs to be done done...and if you vote for  military actions have the balls to stand behind your position and not retreat for political reason/opportunities...it's too bad that sending sons and daughters into harm's way isn't taken more serious...Another portion of the book stated that Sec Gates wanted to leave his position on several occassions but remained out of loyalty and commitment to the troops...kind of difficult to disagree or criticize that professionalism...

That's a nice thought but I believe you are implying what a lot of people do- that once the troops are on the ground you either support every action they take and continue to take or yoiu're not "supporting the troops" and you are not being a "loyal American." You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard those words so many times I can't count them anymore.
Sometimes supporting the troops means bringing them home even if all the goals you had previously are not accomplished. New information should always be considered and not tossed aside because the troops are already on the ground. Sometimes that new information may just be that the troops were sent into a situation that did not exist, such as not finding the WMD's in Iraq that we were told were there. Gates had that information before he became SOD in 2006 but still continued to " support the troops" by continuing a war we had no reason to be in.
I don't intend to ignore the FOWH's wrong deeds just because we have a different POTUS now. Gates didn't make the ultimate decision, no, but he was as wrong about those wars as the FOWH was. Obama should have never kept him on when he took office in 2009. Just one more thing Obama did that disappointed those of us that voted for him.

Otter wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

nochain wrote:

Otter wrote:

I hate to be sarcastic about what Gates said, but if he'd thought about the lives of those soldiers before he sent them into wars that were unwinnable, he might not have had to write so many letters. Here's one of the comments he made:

Hmmm, after all these years and 20 years in the military I was always under the impression Presidents (Commander-in-Chiefs) with the concurrence and funding of Congress were responsible for sending troops into war. Turns out Gates was responsible all along eh? He wasn't even SecDef (2006-2011) during the initiation of those wars. Whether someone agrees or disagrees with a country's decision to enter a war once boots are on the ground it's imperative to do everything possible for the troops. Whatever his other warts or issues - Gates did that.

     And that's my biggest criticism of many in politics...yes have a debate...explain the different positions..opinions..etc., BUT once the boots are on the ground the troops are the priority and get what needs to be done done...and if you vote for  military actions have the balls to stand behind your position and not retreat for political reason/opportunities...it's too bad that sending sons and daughters into harm's way isn't taken more serious...Another portion of the book stated that Sec Gates wanted to leave his position on several occassions but remained out of loyalty and commitment to the troops...kind of difficult to disagree or criticize that professionalism...

Gates had that information  before he became SOD in 2006 but still continued to " support the troops" by continuing a war we had no reason to be in.

Ummm, that was his job as SecDef. It was not in his "power" to end the war in any way........I guess using your "logic" Obama should be in the same or even more "responsible" category as Gates since he is the CinC - correct?

nochain wrote:

Otter wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

nochain wrote:

Otter wrote:

I hate to be sarcastic about what Gates said, but if he'd thought about the lives of those soldiers before he sent them into wars that were unwinnable, he might not have had to write so many letters. Here's one of the comments he made:

Hmmm, after all these years and 20 years in the military I was always under the impression Presidents (Commander-in-Chiefs) with the concurrence and funding of Congress were responsible for sending troops into war. Turns out Gates was responsible all along eh? He wasn't even SecDef (2006-2011) during the initiation of those wars. Whether someone agrees or disagrees with a country's decision to enter a war once boots are on the ground it's imperative to do everything possible for the troops. Whatever his other warts or issues - Gates did that.

     And that's my biggest criticism of many in politics...yes have a debate...explain the different positions..opinions..etc., BUT once the boots are on the ground the troops are the priority and get what needs to be done done...and if you vote for  military actions have the balls to stand behind your position and not retreat for political reason/opportunities...it's too bad that sending sons and daughters into harm's way isn't taken more serious...Another portion of the book stated that Sec Gates wanted to leave his position on several occassions but remained out of loyalty and commitment to the troops...kind of difficult to disagree or criticize that professionalism...

Gates had that information  before he became SOD in 2006 but still continued to " support the troops" by continuing a war we had no reason to be in.

Ummm, that was his job as SecDef. It was not in his "power" to end the war in any way........I guess using your "logic" Obama should be in the same or even more "responsible" category as Gates since he is the CinC - correct?

Obama IS responsible for the continuation of the war. You are correct. He has been wrong about the war since he took office. Retaining Gates as an adviser may have contributed to his being wrong, but he has no excuse.
See buddy, Democrats are allowed to admit when other Democrats screw up. I'm sorry that same right isn't a part of your party's doctrine.
Remember Reagan said to speak no evil about a fellow Republican?
My party doesn't listen to ridiculous  talk like that.
That's a big part of the reason I'm a democrat.

Otter wrote:

nochain wrote:

Otter wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

nochain wrote:

Otter wrote:

I hate to be sarcastic about what Gates said, but if he'd thought about the lives of those soldiers before he sent them into wars that were unwinnable, he might not have had to write so many letters. Here's one of the comments he made:

Hmmm, after all these years and 20 years in the military I was always under the impression Presidents (Commander-in-Chiefs) with the concurrence and funding of Congress were responsible for sending troops into war. Turns out Gates was responsible all along eh? He wasn't even SecDef (2006-2011) during the initiation of those wars. Whether someone agrees or disagrees with a country's decision to enter a war once boots are on the ground it's imperative to do everything possible for the troops. Whatever his other warts or issues - Gates did that.

     And that's my biggest criticism of many in politics...yes have a debate...explain the different positions..opinions..etc., BUT once the boots are on the ground the troops are the priority and get what needs to be done done...and if you vote for  military actions have the balls to stand behind your position and not retreat for political reason/opportunities...it's too bad that sending sons and daughters into harm's way isn't taken more serious...Another portion of the book stated that Sec Gates wanted to leave his position on several occassions but remained out of loyalty and commitment to the troops...kind of difficult to disagree or criticize that professionalism...

Gates had that information  before he became SOD in 2006 but still continued to " support the troops" by continuing a war we had no reason to be in.

Ummm, that was his job as SecDef. It was not in his "power" to end the war in any way........I guess using your "logic" Obama should be in the same or even more "responsible" category as Gates since he is the CinC - correct?

Obama IS responsible for the continuation of the war. You are correct. He has been wrong about the war since he took office. Retaining Gates as an adviser may  have contributed to his being wrong, but he has no excuse.
See buddy, Democrats are allowed to admit when other Democrats screw up. I'm sorry that same right isn't a part of your party's doctrine.
Remember Reagan said to speak no evil about a fellow Republican?
My party doesn't listen to ridiculous  talk like that.
That's a big part of the reason I'm a democrat.

LOL! I do believe I made it clear that Bush II should not have started Iraq II - But I guess you missed that. I have also said on many occasions that Bonehead Boehner and the rest of the Congress (on both sides of the aisle) need to be sent packing for failing to do their jobs. There is something refreshing about being an independent thinker......

nochain wrote:

Otter wrote:

nochain wrote:

Otter wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

nochain wrote:

Otter wrote:

I hate to be sarcastic about what Gates said, but if he'd thought about the lives of those soldiers before he sent them into wars that were unwinnable, he might not have had to write so many letters. Here's one of the comments he made:

Hmmm, after all these years and 20 years in the military I was always under the impression Presidents (Commander-in-Chiefs) with the concurrence and funding of Congress were responsible for sending troops into war. Turns out Gates was responsible all along eh? He wasn't even SecDef (2006-2011) during the initiation of those wars. Whether someone agrees or disagrees with a country's decision to enter a war once boots are on the ground it's imperative to do everything possible for the troops. Whatever his other warts or issues - Gates did that.

     And that's my biggest criticism of many in politics...yes have a debate...explain the different positions..opinions..etc., BUT once the boots are on the ground the troops are the priority and get what needs to be done done...and if you vote for  military actions have the balls to stand behind your position and not retreat for political reason/opportunities...it's too bad that sending sons and daughters into harm's way isn't taken more serious...Another portion of the book stated that Sec Gates wanted to leave his position on several occassions but remained out of loyalty and commitment to the troops...kind of difficult to disagree or criticize that professionalism...

Gates had that information  before he became SOD in 2006 but still continued to " support the troops" by continuing a war we had no reason to be in.

Ummm, that was his job as SecDef. It was not in his "power" to end the war in any way........I guess using your "logic" Obama should be in the same or even more "responsible" category as Gates since he is the CinC - correct?

Obama IS responsible for the continuation of the war. You are correct. He has been wrong about the war since he took office. Retaining Gates as an adviser may  have contributed to his being wrong, but he has no excuse.
See buddy, Democrats are allowed to admit when other Democrats screw up. I'm sorry that same right isn't a part of your party's doctrine.
Remember Reagan said to speak no evil about a fellow Republican?
My party doesn't listen to ridiculous  talk like that.
That's a big part of the reason I'm a democrat.

LOL! I do believe I made it clear that Bush II should not have started Iraq II - But I guess you missed that. I have also said on many occasions that Bonehead Boehner and the rest of the Congress (on both sides of the aisle) need to be sent packing for failing to do their jobs. There is something refreshing about being an independent thinker......

There seems to be a common thinking or lack thereof on this topic...Your opening sentence seems to be not understandable to some...It's amazing that it is known the individuals that were/are responsible/accountable for sending troops into harms way....but there is an intentional disconnect with some about the degree to which these individuals are held responsible and/or accountable for their votes or support in granting permission for military actions in most cases it seems that those with a (D) are somehow allowed to have a 'do over' and now have been successful for blaming someone else for their votes/support...There has never been a denial that President Bush is/was responsible and accountable along with members of his administration and he...they will be judged on their reasoning for the actions taken....Have never read anything in with President Bush or Sec of Defense Gates have denied their responsibilities....Attempting to say otherwise is either a lack of being able to comprehend or an attempt to continue to state the obvious...The criticism of the cowh and his administration is based on their actions/decisions pertaining to Iraq and Afghanistan on they were in charge...not the former president...Much like many other issues this administration has never accepted resonsibilities or held accountable because they've been allowed to simply blame President Bush or others...

Otter, Holding something Reagan said against an entire party is the same thing as holding a hooker responsible for every case of clap or AIDS, no matter how they got it.. I guess I should hold every Democrat responsible for Clinton's sex with Monica or Nancy using a 474 for weekend trips across the country or Harry Reid for cutting veteran benefits so he can increase the benefits for ILLEGAL aliens..

Jake92 wrote:

Otter, Holding something Reagan said against an entire party is the same thing as holding a hooker responsible for every case of clap or AIDS, no matter how they got it.. I guess I should hold every Democrat responsible for Clinton's sex with Monica or Nancy using a 474 for weekend trips across the country or Harry Reid for cutting veteran benefits so he can increase the benefits for ILLEGAL aliens..

Yes, but Reagan is the patron saint of the Republican Party.
He said it so it's like when the Pope makes a pronouncement the Catholics are supposed to fall in line behind it.

You can't deny a lot of Republicans want Reagan's head on Mt Rushmore.

I have NEVER heard 1 person of any party say they want Reagan's head on Mt Rushmore.. One good thing he did was get the hostages freed and returned home from Iran without 1 shot being fired, after they were taken hostage during Carter's term...

WHAT good has Pelosi or Reid done for the average citizen?? I know, they got everything the illegal aliens wanted, but NOT what the average taxpaying citizen wants.

I agree NOT everything either Bush or the Republicans did was right but not everything Obama and the Democrats has done is right either.. It's NOT the party that does things, it's the people in the party.. ANYONE who votes 100% for either party is an idiot..

Jake92 wrote:

I have NEVER heard 1 person of any party say they want Reagan's head on Mt Rushmore..  One good thing he did was get the hostages freed and returned home from Iran without 1 shot being fired, after they were taken hostage during Carter's term...  

WHAT good has Pelosi or Reid done for the average citizen??  I know, they got everything the illegal aliens wanted, but NOT what the average taxpaying citizen wants.

I agree NOT everything either Bush or the Republicans did was right but not everything Obama and the Democrats has done is right either..  It's NOT the party that does things, it's the people in the party..  ANYONE who votes 100% for either party is an idiot..

LOL- you got the news first here then Jake. Reagan and Mt Rushmore have been talked about for years:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ronald-reagan-centennial-presidents-likeness-live/story?id=12853508