Showering the military with superlatives may be good politics, but it's not necessarily good policy. A pat on the back for "dedication" and "determination" or even a simple "thank you" is all the military needs, Mr. President.
What's most interesting about the Rolling Stone article, which offers a thorough look at how American soldiers in Afghanistan allegedly murdered Afghan civilians, is that it raises questions about military officer accountability.
It will take generational extinction and a profound national transformation before Germany can debate military action as freely as the United States or Great Britain without the epic burden of its history.
The first time I taught a one-hour class at West Point, a 20-year-old student made it very clear that while he might be studying ethics, law and morality in school, it was practicalities that really concerned him.
Until our national debate genuinely focuses on what is truly a threat to our national security, opposing a war and supporting the troops will continue to be an oxymoron in the eyes of so many decent Americans.
"Supporting" the soldier necessarily means sharing his desire for victory. From this perspective, there is an inherent contradiction in claiming to "support" the soldier while taking actions that undercut his efforts.
Amid talk of a new arms race, Americans should know more about what billions of their tax dollars are paying for. It's likely that DARPA projects will simply lead to needless expenditures on weapons designed for wars the U.S. won't fight.