How credible is Cleland as "a vocal critic of the Iraq war" when by his own admission his approach to it is "avoidance, not wanting to connect with anything dealing with" it, and trying "to disconnect and disassociate" from sources of information about it?
To chest-beating warriors like Taranto who so endlessly impress themselves by cheering on wars from afar, the slaughter and brutality of wars is purely abstract -- akin to losing (or gaining) points in a video game that they play while slumped safely on their couch or in front of their computer. Only weak, whiny, spineless, freakish losers like Cleland suffer effete emotional disturbances as a result of the endless bloodbath in Iraq. It's the tough and resolute guys like James Taranto who can call for more and more killing and bombing and invasions and slaughter while sleeping perfectly well at night ...
Cleland lost three limbs in military service on behalf of the United States, and now he speaks publicly about his mental struggles with war in order to make it easier for other veterans who could benefit from treatment to seek that treatment. But to Taranto, it's Cleland whose views on war we should ignore because after being "engrossed" by the war for three years, he has finally become so emotionally affected by the endless killings that he finds it difficult to read about it every day.
I've said it previously, if we are - as the war mongers say - in an age of unparalleled terror and nuclear proliferation, facing an ominous threat that could very well lead to the destruction of this country, the dhimmification of our Western culture, our leaders would be negligent if they didn't institute a mandatory military service requirement for all citizens. Our armed forces are not large enough to fight all the wars that need to be fought. Service is the patriotic thing to do. Everyone will pay their fair share for protecting our country and perhaps then we won't have people like Cleland losing limbs that should have come from the likes of Bush, Cheney, and Rove.