You and many others look at the "bailout" proposal as a knee-jerk reaction to the perceived crisis. So many have commented that while they certainly don't know if the bill is the best solution, or even an adequate answer to the problem, it is imperative that SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!

First, lets look at your analogy of the military commander. As you said, there appear to be "several imperfect defensive tactics" which the commander rejects. You state that he "decided to simply stand by and do nothing, permitting those he was responsible for to be injured or killed." Not necessarily the whole story. A good commander will look at the big pictures and consider the impact of his decisions on that picture. Possibly the defensive tactics currently available would, in the longer run, be more damaging. Sometimes, the only military solution is to shun seemingly more beneficial tactics, hold your ground, and possibly suffer complete defeat in the short run in order to triumph in the bigger picture. Of course, the Alamo leaps forward as an example, but history is replete with instances where military units took the hard choice, who rejected a possible alternative that might make their position more tenable but would not address the root problem.

A second group of objectors could be described as the Hippocratc Oath believers --- though the source of this adage is not the Oath These people believe that in any action, the primary principle should be "first do no harm." Naturally politics is often more pragmatic than philosophy, and often one must eat a little dirt. On this issue, many decided that the dirt far outweighed any benefit.