On a business trip this week, I picked up a copy of this week's US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT because of a trio of cover stories on Obama (Feb 25-March 3, not yet online. From their website, usnews.com, it looks like they embargo the current newstand issue, and only open it up to free access on the website the following week).
There's an article there, "The Burden of Duty", on the American military. Good, in-depth coverage, a lot meatier than the usual fare in Newsweek or Time. (This is a bit of a discovery for me, as I've always steered away from US News as a conservative-leaning mag. But there was good stuff in this one; the three articles on Obama, one of which was an interview with him, were also good)
Anyway, this bit in "Burden of Duty" caught my eye:
Today, troops discuss such leadership challenges at countless outposts in Iraq and at the premier centers of military learning. These chats are not always pretty. Some note, for example, that Congress has fewer military leaders than in the past and, perhaps as a result, shows too much deference to the military leaders who testify on Capitol Hill. "Congress doesn't ask the tough questions they should be asking, because they're afraid that they're going to be accused of not supporting the troops," says one captain on patrol in East Baghdad. His buddy agrees. "Debates in Congress don't hurt our feelings. That's what we're here for, freedom of speech."
There is little doubt within the military itself, particularly among more junior officers, that this freedom of speech includes a growing willingness to question the decisions of commanders leading the war. .