Tony Snow and Charlie Daniels are irrelevant to me, but I thought Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had it bassackwards in his criticism of Congressman John Murtha. Gen. Pace should have leveled his criticism at President Bush.

After all, Murtha simply said, "The miliatary had no problem recruiting directly after 9/11 because everyone understood that we had been attacked. But now the millitary's ability to attract recruits is being hampered by the prospect of prolonged, extended and repeated deployments; inadequate equipment; shortened home stays; the lack of any connection between Iraq and the brutal attacks of 9/11; and - most importantly - the administration's constantly changing, undefined, open-ended military mission in Iraq."

Because of this common knowledge, Murtha, a 37 year Marine veteran, said if he were eligible to join the military today he would not, nor would he expect others to join. Gen. Pace's position appears to be that of, "my country right or wrong" America's young men and women are obligated to serve our country by joining the military when it's commanded by an administration bent on military misadventure. Congressman Murtha, on the other hand, is representing the very best of independent thinking and free will, that young people with critical thinking skills just might choose to set aside what otherwise might have been an intention to serve in the military at this point in their lives precisely because the military is presently commanded by a president who does not evoke loyalty toward either himself or his mission.

I think Murtha's comments were absolutely the right thing to say if he believes his own words, as I do. Young people join the military for a variety of reasons, patriotism, wanting a break between high school and higher education, parents convince them they need some experience with discipline and structure, educational financial assistance, lots of reasons. But those young people can also think and analyze and weigh those reasons against the prospects of becoming participants in a military misadventure that doesn't square with their personal values.

It's the perfect scenario. I have always thought wars should be fought by people who believe in them, not by people who don't believe in them and are unwilling participants. Reminds me of the Vietnam era saying, "What if they gave a war and nobody came?" It could be that a voluntary military is exactly the best way for our country to avoid military misadventures that the population that would have to fight them can say, "No thanks," at least the prolonged ones.