Reply #8: Great post, but I see some subjective areas.

[tubbacheez]

Before determining there is a lack of substance or worth, one must decide by what measurements will such worth be compared to. Success or failure depends on how one views the goal. If a soldier's personal goal was to do the President's bidding (regardless of what oaths were actually required), then he may consider his death to be well and good.

Note that I never said anything about heroism. I don't know where to draw the line between heroes and non-heroes, though I suspect that line is customarily drawn collectively by pop culture (with influence from the media).

Note also that I never said soldiers who blindly obey orders are morally excused from wrongdoing. In samurai times, upon realizing he had been ordered to perform an injustice, a moral samurai might commit seppuku (ritual suicide) in order to fulfill both his duty to his daimyo and his own sense of honor.

Blind loyalty is by definition blind, yes. And as a blind person might tell you, there can be a very functional relationship involving blind loyalty if sufficient trust is established.

Bush abused this trust. It's tragic. And I suspect that many of our soldiers (even those who aspire to samurai ideals) may not be so trusting in the future.

But I'll still stop short of claiming anything about those who died.

If one guy chose to die in a successful attempt to save his buddy from a grenade, then by his personal definition he'll call it a good death. If another guy died while searching for WMDs, then by his personal definition he may consider himself duped.