> What the fuck was a US soldier doing in Iraq to start with? Was there a draft? I don't recall there being one.

A draft has nothing at all to do with whether the invasion in 2003 was a legal use of armed force or not, under U.S. domestic law or international law. If that invasion was illegal without the draft, then it was also illegal with a draft. Being a conscript doesn't make your participation in an otherwise illegal invasion magically legal.

But. Even if you disagree (as I do) with the justification for invading in Iraq in 2003, there are and were plenty of legitimate reasons for U.S. forces to be there to restore security after the U.S. fucked everything up.

In fact, the current government of Iraq and the Kurdish pesh merge invited the U.S. back in to conduct air strikes to beat back ISIS (who prominently came to power after the U.S. military left...), much to the acclaim of practically the entire world, including the U.N., including Pope Francis, including Iraqis themselves. I'll bet even Iran was happy.

But that U.S. intervention was just as legal as the U.S. presence in 2005. You can't have your cake and eat it too, man.

> So Gen. knows how to spew propaganda. Hell, he wouldn't be a good general if he didn't.

It wasn't just the General. The Democratic mayor of New Orleans was quite complimentary as well: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/02/honore.profile/

But either way, no offense but your idea that an Army General (or soldier in general) is simply locked into being a bloodthirsty monster by virtue of the system they operate in is just as crazy as the idea that being a black single mother must make you a welfare queen, or that being a gay homosexual must mean that you like home decorating and keep up with fashion.

> Have the found any WMDs yet?

The Army never said there was WMDs to find, so what's that have to do with anything.

> How about that Abu Ghraib?

Reported to the world by the Army? That Abu Ghraib? I mean, if you want to bash on the Army, you should bash on the Army for refusing to promote the Major General who investigated the conditions at Abu Ghraib after it was leaked to the world and came back with a report damning of the entire setup of the U.S. presence at the prison. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/06/25/the-generals-re...

There's plenty of bad apples, alright, but they were wearing stars on their collars, and suits and ties, and included officers and civilians. Not just generals, but Rumsfeld, and Congress too. Should we disband Congress then? Install a benevolent dictator?

Gen. Taguba points it out best himself: "From the moment a soldier enlists, we inculcate loyalty, duty, honor, integrity, and selfless service. And yet when we get to the senior-officer level we forget those values...".

OK, so there are a bunch of senior officer shit bags... does that make integrity, service, honor and duty bad things? No, it doesn't, and in any event soldiers get immersed in those values to a far greater degree than local and state police forces.

It was those same values about sacrifice and integrity that led a junior enlisted soldier to inform the world about the Mahmuydiah atrocity you pointed out. That wasn't caught by a human rights activist, it was caught and reported by a soldier.

So if your viewpoint is that an entire institution must be put to death for the crimes of its members I'm going to have to disagree. Should all libertarians have to answer for the slayings contracted by DPR? Should all Socialists have to answer for Stalin and Mao?