Checkbook Patriotism
[Phillip Carter,
Sunday September 16, 2007 at 1:54pm ]
Douglas MacKinnon has a provocative essay in today's Houston Chronicle on the subject of wartime sacrifice. MacKinnon, a former White House and Pentagon official who was an aide to Bob Dole, chides those Americans who think they're "supporting the troops" by putting a yellow ribbon on their cars, or engaging in some other shallow show of support. It's an angry essay, but one that I mostly agree with. Here's a piece of his argument:
The question is not whether such gestures reflect honestly held or sincere sentiments. I assume they do. The important question is what these gestures contribute to the war effort, and the answer is nearly zero. A related question is what these gestures reflect in the way of meaningful sacrifice. Again, the answer is nearly nothing. While you can surely find some Americans sacrificing a great deal of time and money to support these worthwhile programs, they represent the exception and not the rule.
Owen West and I beat this drum a lot, and in nearly every article we write, you'll find some variation of this line: the burden of today's war is heavy but it is not wide. We are asking a tiny fraction of Americans to bear the burden of the long war. I think that is a strategic blunder, and one which will eventually lead to defeat.
I'd like to see our next president call on the nation to mobilize and serve, and create some mechanism for them to do so. America may not need to mobilize for Iraq or Afghanistan, although I think it should. But it absolutely needs to mobilize for the long war, and people better get ready to do more than simply write a check. You better believe that our enemies -- North Korea, Iran, Al Qaeda, et al -- are willing to sacrifice.
(* I signed my team up to receive tons of these packages while we were deployed. We benefited from the generosity of Soldiers Angels, and other groups, and I wrote thank-you notes to the generous people who sent us packages. These packages made our tour more comfortable; we also gave many of them to our Iraqi interpreters and colleagues, who were most grateful.)
Who in the United States really supports our troops? If truth be told, basically nobody.Checkbook patriotism doesn't cut it. Neither does volunteering one weekend a month to put together care packages for troops* deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nor does "supporting the troops" by saying so to a polltaker, wearing a yellow ribbon, sticking a magnet on your car, flying a flag, or just about anything else that passes for "supporting the troops" these days.
My former boss, Sen. Bob Dole — who was grievously wounded in combat during World War II and then spent the next three years of his life in various hospitals trying to survive and recover from his wounds — says this generation of soldiers, not his, is truly "The Greatest Generation." Over the course of the last few years, he has quietly visited with hundreds of wounded soldiers and been brought to tears, not only by their sacrifice, but also by their determination to rejoin their fellow soldiers back in Iraq and Afghanistan.
While Bob Dole, who clearly supports our troops, may think of them as "The Greatest Generation," not many of us agree with his very accurate assessment. Out of a nation of now 300 million people, who really cares about the young men and women we send into harm's way?
Let's see. Those on active duty obviously care, their families care, veterans care, a small number in the media care, some states like Texas care more than others, and a minute amount of the national population actually cares. But for the vast majority of the rest America, the young men and women who serve on the front lines and protect us from evil are all but invisible. They don't exist in our lives, they occupy no space in our minds, and their sacrifice goes unnoticed and unappreciated.
* * *
What about the employers who now say they would never hire someone in the National Guard or hold a job for someone in the Guard currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Does patriotism and the ultimate protection of their business, now have a price tag or bottom line?
Let's be honest with ourselves. As most of us blissfully go to the movies, sporting events, restaurants, the mall, walks in the park or sleep safely in our beds, we don't think of the troops. Never. Their sacrifice and pain never crosses our minds. Not once.
But it should. For it is only their sense of duty and heroic sacrifice that is separating us from those who mean to end our way of life. Shame on us all for forgetting that.
The question is not whether such gestures reflect honestly held or sincere sentiments. I assume they do. The important question is what these gestures contribute to the war effort, and the answer is nearly zero. A related question is what these gestures reflect in the way of meaningful sacrifice. Again, the answer is nearly nothing. While you can surely find some Americans sacrificing a great deal of time and money to support these worthwhile programs, they represent the exception and not the rule.
Owen West and I beat this drum a lot, and in nearly every article we write, you'll find some variation of this line: the burden of today's war is heavy but it is not wide. We are asking a tiny fraction of Americans to bear the burden of the long war. I think that is a strategic blunder, and one which will eventually lead to defeat.
I'd like to see our next president call on the nation to mobilize and serve, and create some mechanism for them to do so. America may not need to mobilize for Iraq or Afghanistan, although I think it should. But it absolutely needs to mobilize for the long war, and people better get ready to do more than simply write a check. You better believe that our enemies -- North Korea, Iran, Al Qaeda, et al -- are willing to sacrifice.
(* I signed my team up to receive tons of these packages while we were deployed. We benefited from the generosity of Soldiers Angels, and other groups, and I wrote thank-you notes to the generous people who sent us packages. These packages made our tour more comfortable; we also gave many of them to our Iraqi interpreters and colleagues, who were most grateful.)
0 Trackbacks /
It was a poor decision to go in, and there was poor management after the initial successes in the invasion. Now someone has to clean up the mess. We have too large of a national security interest in that region to simply walk away.
While for some of us it would be refreshing to see a politician step up to the plate and talk seriously about national service, tax increases, or perhaps even a draft, is there seriously someone out there willing to take the pummeling they would get by suggesting such things? I'd question that even hard-line conservative war supporters would hop on that band wagon.
The sad thing is how superficial the political battles are as compared to the real complexities of foreign policy and what it takes to make it work.
About companies holding jobs for reserve members who have been called up. I believe the unwritten deal between business and government, was that such callups would rare and short. If I were a small businessman with an employee with a key skill called up I would be hurting. Its pretty hard to hire a highly skilled person, under the conditions that his job is over when Johny comes home.
If you want to support the troops; get rid of most of the current generals. Most of those guys joined after Vietnam; are advocates of the "Powell Doctrine" and botched this war from start to finish. These guys want to be ready to fight Red China in 2020; and view this war as a distraction. They have repeatedly refused to promote the "warfighters" such as McMasters. Instead their emphasis is on "managers".
We can and should support our military, but to say that the general public does not support the military is nonsense. However, to say that you don't really support the military unless you are in favor of the draft or raising taxes is also nonsense.
In the interest of executive expediency and upperclass acceptance we have withdrawn the demand of shared risk from those most likely to materially benefit or politically abrogate an initiative such as unprovoked war.
Our beliefs in the equality of man, the value of human dignity and the shared benefits of liberal democarcy are compromised by this failure to require cross societal risk sharing responsibility.
A fair draft is really reguired for us to avoid an erosion of our national security. A soldier's life should be valued no less than an investment requirement.
o I've never served in the armed forces and much of what I read about them is very foreign to me.
o I'm a peace corps volunteer in the south pacific.
o I follow the news the best I can, I try to evaluate the mission the soldiers have been given as well as the issues associated with medical care for them when they have returned home.
o I write my senators when I can about my concerns: number of soldiers in Iraq; the crap at Walter Reed, etc
So given my situation, what else can I do to support them? What can I do when I get home (I'll be done here in December)?
I strongly support a tax increase. I want Americans to pay right now for their folly in supporting the bozos in charge; by doing so, they might come to a true understanding of the importance of the votes they cast. And, on the subject of money in particular, it's wrong to say that Americans aren't paying a price for the Bush war. We are all paying in the form of current lowered standards of living (financial) and in living in the fear-based society we've created. We will also pay dearly in the future when the bill comes due for our mindless military adventures in even more diminished living standards. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and longer life spans will tell that tale.
There is no existential threat to the United States. Absent such a threat, it's hard to support any thesis that we're not spending enough on DoD, FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, etc., to deal with this "Long War." Or that we don't have sufficient manpower already dedicated to this phony war. And on the subject of manpower, so long as sufficient numbers volunteer then there is no need for a draft. This is especially true, given the profound implications of involuntary military service. Further, any draft would be exceedingly inequitable simply because the military does not need anywhere near the numbers that would be eligible. This would inexorably lead to a Vietnam-style draft—one I lived through—where the well-connected would avoid service because of "other priorities," with the poor and middle class serving in their stead. This country cannot afford to do that again.
Never in the history of mankind have so many spent so much in pursuit of so little.
A day doesn't pass when I'm not ashamed at what we let 19 guys do to us.
I thought it would take another 30 or 40 years of bloody thrashing for the messianic hegemony to accept reality. But if the majority here in the US wants to rah-rah a trainwreck or jumping back onto the old status-quo rail instead, don't ask me to stoke the fires to help.
I remember people predicting our economic world would end when Khomeini took over Iran. If OBL took over SA tomorrow, he'd have 22 million golden brats' asses to wipe and feed. And he'd do that just like Khomeini did.
That's reality. Not the existential clash-of-civilizations so many here want to fantasize winning.
I respectfully disagree. The true "best and brightest" are my brothers and sisters in uniform. I have never doubted that for a moment. I'm not sure, however, what "support" we expect from the public. Do we want the nation to suffer as we do? Isn't the whole point of our service so that the rest of the nation does NOT suffer? I was humbled when I walked through the Dallas airport. As anyone else coming home on R&R can attest, the reception there is incredible. I am proud of the fact that most Americans don;t have to serve. It means that those of us who are serving must be doing at least something correctly, despite some of the unfortunate decisions of the past 4 years.
The Army has a right to expect public support when the public, through its elected officials, gives it a clear mission and the means to carry it out in a timely manner. However, if the problem is open-ended and does not require altering peacetime life, then what the threat requires is a profession whose members can devote their careers to it, not an army of conscripts replaced every two years. The British had a long-service volunteer force in the 19th and 20th centuries and only conscripted for rare big wars. These always ended in a matter of years, not decades.
The case for national service can be argued on grounds of equity but it must still be an efficient solution for the Army and for the kinds of wars that are in progress or in prospect. And even when it is an efficient way to fight a war, conscription does not solve the deeper problem of having a clear mission, a proper match of means and ends, and capable leadership.
Not to mention that 50-100,000 or so of that cohort are bona fide princes, and would need Givenchy ass wipes and gourmet meals. OBL would not be able to turn wholesale against the Royals, since some of them have been in the bag for him awhile. Bin Laden needs to read his Robespierre!
Guantanamo Blog --
September 15, 2007
UNDERWEAR ALERT
by Candace Gorman
Who might that be? I think you're confusing explanation and debate with advocacy.
> to mobilize and serve, and create some mechanism for
> them to do so.
So that the next Radical political group that comes along (which is most likely going to be the Radical Right again in 2012) can seize that organization/those people and put them to good use on the next PNAC brainstorm?
Cranky
Iraq was never a threat to the US, it is not one now. Any person who chooses to participate in this despicable exercise is at best a pawn, at worst a shill of the oligarchy. The average American has nothing at stake in this struggle.
Sacrifice? Here's what: how about compulsory military service for all offspring of the executive and legislative branches who are 18-35 years of age. Same goes for all offspring of the Board of Directors for any business winning a contract to provide support or services in Iraq. This includes the oil and energy concerns.
Then , and only then, come and talk to me about sacrifice.
Great post. My question to YOU is the following: When are you going to use your pulpit to kick groups like the Truman Project in the ass and make some noise to advance your/our thoughts re: broadened opportunities for service?
Seriously. Many wring their hands in feigned frustration over the civil-military divide but so far, groups like Truman have done little more than fund expository writing projects that no one reads. Their "campus outreach" project is a joke and the scale of its inept execution leads me to believe that "campus outreach" means little more than feel good posturing. Those that actually WANT to help them (e.g. myself and an Armor CPT friend in DC on ACS) and have the experience to advance their outreach goals are ignored our discouraged by Ivy-league minions who have never worn a uniform.
I didn't get the job. Work for the Missouri State Public Defender as trial counsel (was recalled earlier this year, finishing up at GTMO, go back to law work in a couple of months): the state defender is a BGEN in the Mo. ANG. MSPD supports their reservists. Period.
I support the troops. I support giving them the body armor and armored vehicles they need in an urban combat setting, not making them buy or make their own. I support not trying to cut their health care during a war. I support not trying to cut their combat pay during a war. I support not putting our wounded in piss-soaked, rat-infested shitholes. I support funding the Department of Veteran's Affairs. I oppose the president. I oppose the war. I support the troops.
If we'd followed the Powell Doctrine, we wouldn't have gone into the war without an exit strategy, and we would've sent enough troops
Actually we wouldn't have gone in the first place, given the lack of "a clear attainable objective," a full and frank analysis of the risks and costs, an examination of the possible consequences of our action, and genuine broad international support.
Also, all non-violent policy means were not fully exhausted. On February 24, 2003, France, Germany, Russia proposed a second UN resolution that called for beefed-up inspections in Iraq with deadlines. The Bush administration rejected giving inspections more time because we supposedly couldn't afford to wait (only to switch to saying we need to give the Iraq Survey Group more time when it was becoming increasingly clear that Iraq didn't have any WMD). No, I'd say the Powell Doctrine's looking pretty good right now.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6998788.stm
I think they don't like having these people being above the law.
However, it is (and always has been) America's unique good fortune that existential threats have been hugely few and far-between - at least those which would require extensive military mobilization. And the threats from non-state actors like al-Qaeda, even those from hostile states like Iran, can be reasonably argued to fall WAY short of "existential". And even less so Bush/Cheney's ludicrous neo-imperialist adventure in Iraq.
One major difference, I think, between the Vietnam era and today, is that Americans have indeed learned to separate the "troops", and their concern for them, from the policies that put them in harms' way. But as for Iraq: the issues are hopelessly muddied by the current Administration's grossly sophisticated PR campaign which has attempted (mostly, to our enormous discredit, successfully) to convince the public that "support the troops" = "support the mission" = "support Bush Administration policies". And THAT is an equation ever-fewer numbers of Americans are willing to "sacrifice" for.
ALso, this military worship thing has been way out of hand for years, and the sudden elevation of the latest cohort to the status of "Greatest Generation" is pathetic. Only a tiny handful of this generation are involved.
Also, if we've got the "best and the brightest" in the service right now, what is up with all the lowering of enlistment standards? Some of you guys live in a very elaborately constructed fantasy world. There are wonderful people in the army and there are absolute freaking scumbags in the army... just like everywhere else.
With respect, I think you're off-base here. If everyone back
in the USA was spending their spare hours knitting socks and
assembling care packages, it wouldn't make a damn bit of
difference to the fact that we invaded the wrong country.
I don't see the point in making everyone in the
country suffer for this blunder: it won't fix it. And if
the idea is that spreading the burden will make people
decide to end the war, the polls indicate that they've
already taken that decision, with over 70% of the public
favoring a complete withdrawal within 24 months (IIRC) -
while only about 16% of the House - the Out of Iraq Caucus -
has faced that reality yet.
As for this "leading to defeat", just as it's hard to
imagine what "victory" might look like, it's equally hard
to imagine what "defeat" in the "long war" might look like.
It's not as though we're going to see an Islamic caliphate
taking over the USA. Heck, no-one thinks AQ can even
take over Iraq. The worst the hawks seem to be able to
suggest these days is that the Middle East might be
"destabilized" - and when was that region ever stable in
the first place ? And that there might be genocide and
civil war in Iraq - but that's happening right now even
during the surge, latest survey suggests 1.2M violent
deaths since the invasion, even *worse* than the Burnham/
Roberts survey.
The problem we've got at the moment is that the national-
secutity elite in the USA is out of touch with reality.
The public (apart from the 30% of Bush die-hards) gets it:
the elite doesn't. As someone with first-hand experience
who's writing and being published on this subject, Phil
is in a position to influence that elite opinion.
Writing about the practicalities of withdrawal helps to
move the ball forward; complaining about the lack of
public sacrifice goes the other way IMO.
I totally disagree with you and with Mr. MacKinnon. The American public was ready for that moment of sacrifice, was ready to do what was necessary to destroy the enemy, and remake America.
That moment came with a vengance and went with a whimper when The President of the United States told everyone to go back to shopping.
Bush's response to 9/11 was "Congress, pass my tax cut."
There's your "Booyah!" Phil, right there, tax cuts when we're going to war, criminy sakes!
I will not go on for fear of crossing the line, and it's best I just remain quiet from here-on out on this thread. But Publius gets it, as does Cranky. I think you should reread their two posts again, I'll let them do the talking for me.
You hit a soft spot with me Phil, a very soft spot.
Those that say we must all sacrifice more for the "long war", "war on terror" or even "war to make the oil economy safe for patchouli wearing Berlin hippies". That's not explaining, that's advocacy. PC isn't flying solo here.
It's always amazed me how many marines worship Smedley Butler, but have never read his book.
Last week, I linked to an essay that's receiving a great deal of attention within DoD. Not simply because Pete Chiarelli is a great general with a proven combat COIN record, but also because he is in an influenctial position at OSD.
This is a step removed from what CPT Carter is discussing (he's probably looking around the law office and noticing that he's the only schlub who got his ass shot at for a year).
The outpouring of support from Americans during my previous deployment was amazing. We even began a program with the Girl Scouts, VFW and Marine Corps League to supply our village and Ramadi MTTs with everything necessary to outfit whole Iraqi classrooms, distribute toys and clothing to children and poor women, and import vast amounts of consumer goods for IAs to distribute to their families back home, which helped us retain their services because the corrupt, incompetent central "government" in Baghdad couldn't see fit to actually pay or feed them on time.
In other words, the outpouring of support from American people who genuinely wanted to help was inspirational. It obviously pointed to an untapped resource.
Richard, who doesn't see himself as "out of touch," but the national security elites (last time I checked, Richard believed we should be bribing other governments not to export weapons to another state), probably believes that if we harness the energy of the American people and their federal institutions, it will only increase the chances of another OIF.
To which Chiarelli would say:
I've done two rotations in OIF. CPT Carter did one quite long 18 month deployment (if I recall) including his train-up. BG, who absents himself from here now, did three (!).
I've now spent a third of my post-collegiate life overseas at war, from Desert Storm to OIF. I likely will conclude my career with another deployment, once medically cleared to do so.
I'm not sure it is either fair or prudent for a modern, wealthy post-industrial nation to ask a relatively small number of people to loose their moorings from the civil society that nurtured them and drift from war to war.
The reality is that even if 10 million Americans went to recruit depots tomorrow to enlist, we wouldn't have the slots to receive them, the materiel in the pipeline to equip them, the officers or NCOs necessary to instruct them or the bases to train, house and feed them.
After conscription and then the drawdown, we adapted to a very truncated military that belies our actual commitments overseas. And within the force structure itself, we now have an Army wherein two out of every five Soldiers will never deploy to either OIF or OEF, and combat arms formations that will require three or four tours barring wounds, mortalities and other drains on manpower.
As for PA NCO, you're quite correct. We have a lot of sh*tbirds I would prefer to get rid of. I've never understood the hero worship of many in the Army or USMC, because anyone who has been in an un-PC unit like a rifle company would know that porn and booze fuel more friendships than church and spit-and-polish.
This is as true today as it was at Valley Forge. The life of the combat arms Soldier is cloistered, masculine, harsh and filled with a group the USMC terms "that 10 percent," which is to say sh*tbags.
There are more sh*tbags today than there were in, say, 1989, because of the noxious waiver system and low recruitment (a problem that actually has bothered us for longer than this war, but no one wants to say that and few press outlets are competent enough to look deeper than 2003).
I don't know if you're out, in the National Guard/Reserves, or wherever, but I bet you will see more sh*tbags in your civilian life than you likely recall in the military. Not because they don't exist in the military, but because we tend to get rid of them faster.
It's always amazed me how many pacifists have read Smedley Butler but haven't the slightest understanding of the lives of Marines.
One also might suggest that the role of the USMC in 1933 has changed a bit in the previous 75 years (!), and that a certain world war that featured a great deal of sacrifice by Marines would put some of Butler's 60-page "book" into context.
The problem for Butler admirers (and I am one of them, to a point), is that by WWII his position kept him against US assistance to the western democracies against fascism. While he did his part to war FDR's administration about the rudimentary plot of a coup against it, he also disgraced himself as identifying FDR as little better than Hitler.
The problem is that WWII wasn't WWI, just as for many the fight against Baathist dictatorship in Iraq wasn't solely about oil.
Smedley Butler began to see every international intervention as inherently immoral. To some extent, he was right. But he was wrong about WWII, and that's a pretty glaring wrong if you ask me.
Suppor them because they're better than you.
Do you honestly expect me or anyone else in the service to believe that the vast majority stay because they're "bribed" or because of "paperwork?" Come on. Get real.
The profession of arms is an honorable one. It is composed of people who could make far, far more in the private sector. Last time I was asked to leave the Army, the pricetag was four times (!) what I earn for all compensation, including deployment bonuses.
CPT Carter left a law firm to sacrifice. Owen West probably made more during six days of trading natural gas futures on Wall Street than he did in six months in Khalidiyah.
If you don't like the war, then get out. No one kept you (despite all that onerous paperwork -- that's just hilarious), and probably no one wanted you all that badly.
But don't cheapen their sacrifice by suggesting that they're there for filthy lucre. True for some, but not nearly for all, just as for some of us we kept at the game beyond Desert Storm, Somalia and Bosnia.
The good general may know about COIN, but he doesn't know how the world works. Certainly, the world of the EU, NAFTA, CAFTA, internet, and what-not are all destabilizing and dangerous movements... And it would all just fall apart if we didn't have those F-22s.
The world isn't dangerous. Rogue nation-states thrashing around on infantile crusades to carry the modern equivalent of the white mans burden are dangerous.
Ultimately, the most dangerous problem is the scourge of illiteracy, be it about the military, foreign policy or common sense.
Consider yourself part of the problem. I know, I know, members of your family served, or whatever.
That makes as much sense as a lot of your analysis. No wonder we're losing the war.
No doubt your truth to the patchouli hippies protesting the war in 2002 and 2003. Good thing your common sense won out, and the dangerous world is so much safer now.
Sigh. I see now that FDChief is away for two weeks, so there's no point hanging around here to find the nugget buried in 200 MSR posts.
See, MSR, every time I get ready to stand up in defense of you, you say crap like this. Is ad hominem really the way to make this argument?
I don't consider myself better or worse than any civilian - it's a pointless as asking who would win in a fight, Superman or Batman. It has no useful purpose.
Check the recent polls: over 50% of the US public wants *all*
troops out of Iraq within 12 months. Another 15-20% want
out, but will settle for a slower withdrawal.
In terms of public opinion - which matters a hell of a lot
in a democracy - this debacle is finished. MSR hasn't
accepted that; neither have the national-security elites
(though the rumors are that Adm Fallon is making plans to
withdraw 75% of the force in Iraq ...). And I guess
neither has Capt Carter, with his talk of "mobilization"
for a "long war". And for all their first-hand experience
in Iraq, MSR and Capt Carter also don't seem in touch with
the harsh story told by the statistics - 4.5 years into
the occupation, the oil isn't flowing, there isn't much
electricity or clean water, the economy is a shambles, and
violent death is everywhere. The elites have screwed it
up.
Anyhow, this is all foolishness: I grew up with IRA
terrorism in the UK of the 1970s and 80s. It wasn't
WW2, it wasn't the Blitz. It was a nuisance and a minor
danger - never close to the death toll of traffic accidents.
You put up with it, and eventually it settles down once
a violent generation or two grows up. And then something
completely different crops up - Welsh nationalists
firebombing second homes, native-born Islamists. Don't put
all your eggs in one basket - there are other problems
already; and 10 or 20 years from now there will be other
problems that no-one can even guess at yet.
If you want to make Americans safer, forget the "long war"
and concentrate on road safety and making health care
affordable for everybody (even the sick). If you want to
keep the economy safe against the threat of oil supply
disruption, put money into spreading the existing
technologies for conservation and efficiency improvements,
and research into new technologies (LED lighting, cheap
photovoltaic generation, plug-in hybrids). This absurd
over-reaction to AQ is distracting us from doing what ought
to be done - of which military action should be only a
very small part.
Here's my problem, Ray. We have someone who is arrogating onto himself some moral authority, because he got out and all the immoral degenerates took their bonus bribery to stay in.
You and I both know that's not even remotely true. He has besmirched a great many decent Soldiers by posing himself as their moral superior, and they as bribed stooges.
You and I both stayed in. I would hazard that when it comes to this war, you and I agree more than disagree about policies.
What I do object to is this man, who purports to being a former commissioned officer, raising himself about others with this line of crap:
What's the difference between me and a contractor? A f*cking contractor makes more money, gets more time off, doesn't get shot at all that often and isn't worried about a pending divorce every time Uncle Sam sends him to Iraq (three deployments since 1990), Somalia (two) and every other poop hole on the planet.
The very heart of his epistle to the civilians is the assumption that anyone who stays in his less important than he is, and that their sacrifice actually makes his life more dangerous.
F*ck him.
You say something I think you have wrong when you argue that the military has less dead weight than the outside world because it gets rid of the sh*tbirds faster than the civilians do.
I don't know how you'd test that claim empirically, but more important, I think you miss the fact that both the military and large civilian bureaucratic organizations operate under similar dynamics. I've worked in a large, for profit mass media company (Time Inc., as was), and on shorter contracts for others; I've worked at and then been under contract to PBS affiliates.
All of the different organizations I've spent time in behaved in similar fashion. in ordinary times, with no great conflict shaking things up, the proportion of deadweight doesn't change much, but often rises at higher levels of the organization, as in my observation, sh*tbirds have as a general quality much sitzfleisch, and a disproportionate capacity for sticking around.
In times of stress, you would think the losers would wash out -- and many do -- but the problem becomes that if changing conditions in the world make life hard for those who aren't that good, then those folks try to cling to their positions until grim death --leading to further dysfunction in an organization as you get too many terrified, out of their depth folks near the top of the org chart. I saw that at Time,(AOL merger, anyone); it's certainly happening now at PBS (and elsewhere in conventional television), where a true gerontocracy refuses to loosen its hold on the place I used to work and value very highly.
Maybe I'm being unfair, but the general officer corps that permitted the current debacle to take place on its watch looks very familiar to me. Am I wrong?
Meanwhile -- I found the op -ed. that leads this thread to be less impressive than some. The argument isn't about supporting the troops, I don't think. I once asked what that meant to people here, and one of the Andrews answered that the best I could do beyond expressing my views to my representatives was to make donations to the veterans groups listed on the side, which I did and do.
The real question is whether or not the US as a whole is willing to support -- pay for and fill -- an expanded military, capable of doing more around the world. There, I think the answer is no on two levels: no, as a matter of fact on the ground, and no, not until some faith in both the civilian and top military leadership reasserts itself.
MSR says that the profession of arms is an honorable one, and I agree -- but that does not mean that honorable men and women cannot look at the actual military and civilian chain of command now, and make a choice both rational and honorable that they do not wish to permit the current leadership to make life-and-death decisions for them. (and by that I mean, not just placing themselves in harm's way, but placing themselves in a position to do harm to others for ends determined by the chain of command).
Until the trust that those decisions will be made with more practical and moral care than on display in the current conflict, I think it's going to be hard to get that kind of support back.
This is not meant as a challenge or criticism to those serving now: signed up and under oath the honorable course is clear. But just saying that folks ought to join because many -- most -- in the military are honorable does not follow.
And last -- to hell with this Texas bullsh*t, on display in the op-ed above. Texas has just as many folks who are all hat an no cattle as it ever did. As I recall from the last time I saw the state-by state breakdown, nice, liberal, godless New England did just fine on the numbers in uniform league tables. Certainly, we have the funerals up here to show for it. You want to claim Texans are better Americans than the rest of us? Prove it.
In a democracy, we don't determine longterm national policy with daily ticks up or down in Gallup polls. We hold something called "elections," in which we find "representatives" to manifest our demand for political action in various institutions nationwide.
The 2004 "public opinion poll" found that more Americans voted for George W. Bush than John F. Kerry.
In 2006, more Americans in certain districts favored fewer pro-Bush Policy Republicans than they did anti-Bush Policy Democrats. Although the war didn't determine ALL the races, it was a major factor in returning power to the Democrats.
The Democrats will have had two years in the House term to wind down the war. They have not managed to do this because power is articulated within institutions in this nation, and not daily opinion polls.
Granted, you were not permitted to take part in either of these important public opinion polls, these "elections" for federal offices, because you're not a naturalized citizen.
There are a great many things that the federal government and Congress and the White House does on my behalf that I don't much like. I can't imagine that I would have chosen any Supreme Court nominee since Ginsburg.
But it's a democracy, and I have to live with the results of elections. I can't protest and scream, "But I don't want him as my justice!" I deal with it.
When there are enough policy makers who believe in the Richard platform -- a $100 billion annual military budget, a withdrawal of all US presence overseas, an abandonment of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a firm commitment to spending more on reducing highway traffic deaths than policing sealanes for global commerce -- then I will have to live with that poll, too.
I get the feeling, however, you are Tuesday's Child in this debate, and you've got far, far to go.
American kids went to war because we sent them. And they stayed - and returned for two, three, four tours -- because we let them. You don't like the war, stop it.
Had we supported the troops, we would have rallied to those politicians and generals who said there weren't enough of them to do the job. We'd have made sure they had the weapons and armor and operational plan in place to know the mission, get in, get it done and come home.
But, gee, it's a volunteer army and they knew what they were getting into. Besides, we all have a life to live. So we let them continue a mission they couldn't win and we don't believe in. And slapped on a yellow ribbon magnet or a Down With Bush bumper sticker and bitched in blogs. (I don't exclude myself, by the way.)
Not to belabor the obvious, soldiers don't make policy; they just die for it. They don't fight for George Bush or the flag. They fight for each other. They take care of each other. They have each others' six. Who has theirs?
He's flustered by the new audience and is really giving the game away. Patchouli-smelling hippies? "Because they're better than you?"
Where's the old MSR? We want more acronyms, more jargon, more grad school military history theses!
Before the so-called GWoT began, we were removing nearly a tenth of our active duty enlisted numbers every year due to random narcotics detection, medical discharges, pregnancies and legal proceedings.
In other words, those who can't subsist in the military morally, physically or legally got the boot, a process that began in the USMC during the early part of the AVF and was later extended at the battalion level (O-5) for the rest of the military.
Because the military already screens potential applicants on the basis of physical incapacity, morality and intelligence, the typical Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine is better educated, smarter, more physically fit and less legally challenged than the given civilian.
Those who don't wish to be in the military or on a specific deployment during peacetime actually have a fairly easy way out: Smoke a joint, get pregnant, desert the post, say you're gay.
Many people believe that we keep more Soldiers during wartime because we need their bodies, which we do by overlooking legal and moral issues. While this is true in some sense, it's also true that the rates of desertion , criminal involvement and tested narcotics use DROP during wartime, most probably because Soldiers are too busy training, going to war and doing all the things optempo does that they don't have time to get into trouble.
The older they are, the longer they remain in the service, the less likely they are to let the caprices of youth involve them in troublemaking.
The problem with our current generation of generals wasn't because they were lifelong incompetents who were incapable of prospering mentally or ethically within a bureaucracy.
The real problem was that they were uniquely promoted quickly during the beginning of the AVF, when there were few other officers around, spent their careers largely untested by war, and had approached commands above the battalion level by the time Desert Storm and Somalia rolled around.
In other words, they were selected as the perfect managers for a peacetime, garrison military safely doing Cold War chores after Vietnam. Most were then selected by a politicized Clinton DoD that wanted to raise to the ranks of generals a certain sort of bureaucratic "warrior" who, ironically, hadn't fought any wars.
Comparing this current generation of generals to those who preceded them (Powell-Schwarzkopf-Zinni-Clark to Schoomaker-Casey-Sanchez-Abizaid) probably can tell you biographically all you need to know about the generals our civilian leaders saw fit to promote, and not that group of COLs (Mansour, Meese, McMaster, et al) currently denied the brass ring.
I try to avoid ad hominems as much as possible, but somewhat in MSR's defense, what that tool said is far worse than what MSR said. That's not to make excuses - I think MSR would win more minds by sticking with the arguments, but that other guy questioned the integrity of virtually every serving member of the military.
So it's the military's fault we're in Iraq. Damn those soliders for enabling the occupation! Damn them for following lawful civilian orders! Damn those wounded soldiers for sucking away his tax dollars and making his life more difficult. I'd bet $100 this fucking idiot was no officer and if he was, good riddance.
I read his post and frankly became more angry than I can remember at anything else I've read here. I let it pass initially, but now that's it's come again again, I felt compelled to air my opinion.
How are you going to rebuild the military with no officers and NCO's you retard?
You're welcome anyway asshat.
Meanwhile, clueless f*ckstick JimJ returns, suggesting that I'm a "neocon" (opposed the war on conventional military grounds and the concern that we didn't have the right to invade a sovereign country without international consensus), "poser" (I'm in AKO last time I checked and have more time overseas than the vast majority of my peers), "Republican" (lifelong Democrat).
I'm none of those things -- pardon me here for the upcoming ad hominem, Ray -- but JimJ certainly is a f*ckstick.
OK, Tom. Where do we stop?
When Clinton ordered me to go back to Somalia to execute a mission I knew wasn't going to succeed, that was going to get good men killed for policy goals even more nebulous (if that's possible) than anything going in OIF or OEF, should I have refused the mission? Pulled a Watada and said, "I'll only go on Restore Hope missions that actually promise to restore hope, not capture warlords who don't wish to be captured?"
I don't care if anyone gets out. People leave the military all the time for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with whether their president gives them the willies.
I wish those leaving the best of luck, and count as dear friends many who left under both honorable and other than honorable circumstances (I still talk with a buddy who popped on a piss test when I was a young enlisted trooper nearly two decades ago).
But what was being argued was quite different. What was being stated was that those who remain are guided by money, not sacrifice, and that this bribed service enables the current administration and (it went without notice) Congress to do what they do, which is putting HIS life in greater danger because of it.
That's disgusting. Not every person in uniform is some f*cking hero, that's for damned sure. But not every person who remains is a money-grubbing pro-terrorist Bushite.
To say that they are is a filthy lie. That it is being spread by a man who claims to have earned a commission is egregious.
Actually, the figure I've suggested is $150B/year - which
would be roughly twice as big as any other nation's military
budget, so it would still leave the USA as the global top
dog by a fair margin. And of course would also be enough
to keep quite a few troops abroad. It wouldn't be anywhere
near enough to repeat Vietnam or Iraq: that's rather the
point.
I haven't stated an opinion as to whether I would favor
withdrawal from Afghanistan right now: I have said that I
think our policy of forcible regime change there was not
the best choice. But that's not the same question.
There's considerable international support for the effort
in Afghanistan; and clearly it's also fertile ground for
AQ if we screw it up.
You laugh at road safety. You shouldn't. Something like
50000 Americans die every year in traffic accidents.
That matters. If an extra $10B would save 10% of those
lives, that would be a very big deal and a very worthwhile
investment. There are plenty of ways of making Americans
safe that don't involve shooting Muslims or rattling
sabres at Iran.
Anyway, I've never claimed that my whole policy agenda is
popular. Some of it is, some of it isn't. Getting out of
Iraq is popular. A drastic reduction in nukes is popular.
Actually, the polling data on that is really interesting:
the median view is that we should halve the number of
nukes deployed; but the median respondent also believes
that the current number is only 200 nukes, not the actual
figure of about 6000. Which raises the interesting
speculation that maybe the real reason we keep that
number classified is not to hide it from the Russians and
the Chinese - they have a pretty accurate idea - but to keep
it hidden from the US voters.
You are of course correct that public opinion is mediated
through elections and institutions. But a war that was
vastly unpopular in 2006 and 2007 isn't likely to be any
more popular in Nov 2008, and a big swing to the Dems in
the Senate will change the political landscape greatly.
It isn't easy or quick for popular anti-war sentiment to
force a change of policy. But, as in Vietnam, after a
couple of election cycles the public gets its way.
How did that McGovern presidency work out for you?
Read the Chiarelli piece MSR linked to above. A few months ago, I mentioned in a series of comments here how it really worried me that the military was fast becoming the only instrument of government that could operate in a crisis, and that it was too often called upon to fix shit when the other instruments of national power fail.
This "long war" requires the other instruments of national power to have more resources, be more enabled, and to be much more capable than they currently are. Right now, the military does 90% of the humping, often outside its core-tasks. As Chiarelli suggests, we frankly should be asking why the military is the only part of the US government on a war footing. Where is the "surge" at the State? Why is our public diplomacy still a complete joke after 6 freakin' years? The US military "mobilized" for these wars, where is the rest of the government?
One might suggest that not only does the military officer continue to hold a prestigious position in our society, but that the military is a uniquely trustworthy institution, and probably could "solve" the Iraqi problem better than most civilians.
Of course, those are merely polls, not elections, and that one would find few officers so arrogant that they would believe themselves more morally, intellectually or ethnical capable of determining these decisions than their civilian overseers.
And how long did America stay in the war after that election ?
"On January 15, 1973, Nixon announced the suspension of offensive action against North Vietnam. The Paris Peace Accords on "Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam" were signed on January 27, 1973, officially ending direct U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War"
I cited reasons other than money and "instituitional pull" (paper work, guilt and bonuses) that drive people to stay - i.e. love for the Army as an institution/profession. No, it's not all about the money, but regardless of what drives a person to either join or remain in service your whimpering - RESPECT MY SACRIFICE - pleas are ridiculous.
This attitude is covered pretty well by the following - "Support them because they're better than you." Why are they better than me, or any other civillian? Why should civillians worship or even respect the military? It might be a necessary calling in rare cases where the life of the nation is threatened, but calling it honorable is a stretch, especially when the "war" is one of choice and largely involves packing kids into HUMVEES and letting them drive around until they hit an IED, or man a CP until a VBIED hits. Oh I forgot, they're also relying on spurious intel leads to kick in doors and detain suspected insurgents and working with the ever stellar ISF and IP.
"It is composed of people who could make far, far more in the private sector."
I call bullshit on this, but it doesn't matter - WTF does taking a pay cut have to do with anything? Most actually couldn't make far more than they're making in the military. Will they have marketable skills once they leave? I believe so, regardless of their MOS or rank at separation, and they'll eventually come out ahead. And yes, I'm sure someone offered you more than four times what you make now (bs). The point is that there will always be exceptional folks who voluntarily leave a life of luxury or a cush and safe job or profession for one that's more exciting and dangerous. But don't confuse exciting and dangerous for either necessary, noble, or even respectable. No one asked you to join, not after 9/11 and not after the invasion of Iraq. Lots of people make personal sacrifices to pursue exciting lines of work that don't pay well - the Peace Corps, mission work, working on fishing boats, etc. The difference between them and military Christ figures like yourself is that they don't get nearly as bitchy when we don't roll around in glorying them. I'm sorry you thought that your military service was an entitlement to society's everlasting respect and adulation. It's not. Unfortunatley you bought into the John Wayne/"Top Gun" war porn myth that it's all a supremely noble calling, and you've allowed yourself to overlook how messy and stupid it is. The fact that so few have any direct knowledge of military life is actually something that you use to your advantage. It's almost always the case that one's respect for the military grows more reverential the less they know. Ask anyone who's experienced typical Joe knuckle-headery, or who lives around any of our finer oasis military bases (Benning and Bragg, strip clubs and check cashing, oh my!) and they'll tell you that the military is a mixed bag.
"If you don't like the war, then get out." That's exactly what I did and what growing numbers are doing, although I left for reasons other than Iraq, mainly a desire to have a more normal life - I probably would have left regardless. But many are leaving because they recognize that it doesn't make sense, it has nothing to do with national security, and that the oath to defend the constitution is hollow under this administration. And I voted for the SOB in '04. Anyway, you apparently love it all and can't let it go. That's wrong - I think you actually like the self pity. You seem to play the part of Christ carrying a cross, of the imperial soldier bearing the warrior burdens of a fat and overindulgent consumer culture. What a sad and silly way to look at the situation! May you find a welcoming VFW post upon your retirement. Maybe you can share stories down the road about how us yellow-bellied civilians stabbed you and your noble savage Hajii friends in the back by withholding support. Stop feeling sorry for yourself - you're not getting my sympathy, support, or respect. Suck it up and drive on, and rediscover a sense of stoicism. Leave the debate to the civilians. I wish you luck on any future deployments. Iraq isn't worth the loss of your life or health, but if you're determined to go back then have at it.
Aren't those poll results you point to the problem you're worried about? Wide "respect," based neither on a knowledge of the military's competence nor a willingness to support the mission they're tasked with, but rather stemming from a strange combination of ignorance, guilt, and national pride somehow connected to the nation's military prowess.
That combination has been called militarism.
I'm not disagreeing with you, MSR ... I just think you've let some people provoke you into losing the thread of your own argument.
I suspect those polls could flip real fast. No evidence, just an intuition --- if the problem is the one you diagnosed, then it follows that civilian respect should be wide but shallow. Real shallow.
50000 Americans die every year in traffic accidents."
Expanding on this, the most recent numbers I found were
about 46000 fatalities/year.
Then I happened to find the total US traffic deaths for
1899-2003: 3.2M.
How does this compare with US war dead ? About 623K for
the same period (starting with Spanish-American War).
WW2 was by far the biggest (405K).
Conclusion: a 10% reduction in traffic deaths would have
saved as many US lives as a 50% reduction in war deaths.
Caveat: past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Now, how did you want to justify that $500B+ military
budget ? I don't think mocking other priorities is a
sufficient argument.
I can only point to a handful that were honestly swayed to stay by re-up bonuses or the fear that they wouldn't be able to find a decent job on the outside. But these cases constitute an anectdotal body of evidence. The fact remains that recruiting is down, applications at USMA are down, Captains and NCOs are leaving, and standards are being lowered to increase headcount. USAREC has decided to tweak bonuses for enlistees, and is now making 35K bonuses to officers who choose to stay in. How dare they do this, and assume that soldiers and officers are motivated to serve and sacrifice for money!!! Don't they know that money is the least of thier considerations? Why not cut pay, or freeze bonuses if patriotism is the most important factor? We can re-direct the money saved and spend it on better health care for vets or parades, or something that appeals more to the honor of those who stick with it than bonuses. How dare USAREC insult their honor by even offering cash incentives!
Does anyone here have any thoughts on it? It really is relevant to this thread.
I wanna bumpersticker big enough for each one of those words!
Damn Straight!
.
Great posts ... one and all. I feel as though we are of like mind on this issue.
"The New American Militarism" is a GREAT read and one of my favorites. I had the privilege of being on a panel with COL Bacevich in Boston last year. A phenomenal man who is deeply concerned with the military's self-imposed exile from the sinews of our national civil-society.
MSR bleats on in his militarist fashion by asserting that 41 year old, ASVAB Cat IIIb E-1s that wouldn't have been allowed anywhere near the Army 3 years ago are "better" than civilians. Bullshit! The facts are simply not on MSRs side. The RA is at 54% fill on KD/BQ Captains, standards are falling by the day and we are promoting 97% of CPTs to Major in cohorts that never even had to compete for entrance on active duty as 2LTs! Take a look at the courts martial docket for criminal offenses over the past 5 years. On some posts, there is a 3-fold increase in the General Courts Martial workload. I know this because good friends from Law School are in the JAG Corps and sucking wind dealing with the caseload.
This pernicious militarism is dangerous and must be challenged at every turn. Despite the popular meme that society abandoned the military, I blame 80% of the current situation on the military. The words and deeds of folks like MSR - with their disingenuous self-pity - has contributed to this problem.
Our current senior officer corps is replete with those who share a contempt towards civil-society. The celerity with which our senior leaders embraced wearing ACUs to coat-and-tie civilain events is a visual manifestation of this problem.
LTG Jack Stultz (USAR Chief) and MG Gale Pollock (acting Surgeon General) are perhaps the 2 most egregious offenders. Funny, how the leaders of the 2 Army organizations that have historically aligned MOST closely with civil-society are two of the most extreme militarists in our General Officer Corps.
... though ole' "Buster" Hagenbeck and Richard Cody are tied for the "bronze" medal in General officer militarism.
I'm not blaming the military for our involvement in Iraq. But anyone in the military and in Iraq at this point knew what they were getting into before they went. If they want to go, that's fine, but don't expect me to support their mission or presence there when I have perfectly sound, experience based reasons for disagreeing with that mission.
For what it's worth (not much really) I have sympathy especially for folks that have been IRR'd, NG and Reservists who are over there, and for the lower enlisted who in some cases might have difficulty identifying alternate options or really do need the money. I also feel bad for some very decent folks out there who are great NCO's and officers who's love of the culture surpasses their disdain or lack of zeal for the mission. I hope they and their families survive the next few years' rotation schedules and they're able to make the Army a better place, and prevent future adventures like Iraq.
As for a temporary reduction in head count, that's exactly what I'd like to see. It's very unrealistic for every NCO and Officer to leave, and that's not what I was calling for. If enough jump ship there will still be plenty left over to train up the new enlistees and commisioned officers that come in after Iraq. I'm all for a draft or tax raise too. That would actually be the quickest way to end all of this. But short of that, I think a drastic reduction in recruiting and a steady exodus of NCOs and officers should do the trick.
What an ass. My wife, who consults with the government having had to leave her gig to follow me from one military base to another, makes twice as much as I do now for part-time work. And I make a pretty good dime.
Same degree, same offers from the same think tanks and corporations.
I'm idiotic enough to know that in two years I'm bound for academia. I've had standing offers for several years from businesses in the Gulf. Want to know how much someone conversant in Arabic language and culture with a national security background and a post-graduate degree makes?
Good gravy. I'd make more in a month than I do in a year. Academia is pro bono work, and I'm just stupid enough to do it.
But that's just me. A freakin' truck driver from Bugtussle, Mississippi starts out on OIF convoys at $100,000 for a year, tax free, and he can quit whenever he wants.
Want to know what a PFC with three years in makes for driving the same ASR?
Since a Soldier easily can transition to one of these civilian contracting jobs in the very country he left (what about all that paperwork! Hilarious),
Of course, this issue hasn't received any scrutiny from the popular press over the years, so we'll just pretend that a Soldier who re-ups to do far more for less money than he'd get as a contractor doesn't exist.
Those who stay in the military are doing so for a great many reasons: A fair wage, timely bonus in reward of their sacrifice, etc., certainly would be part of the equation. But so are patriotism, a shared sense of mission, a belief that what they do matters and the notion that sacrifice is important.
Because they manifest these beliefs in a consumer culture that doesn't reward these virtues, the American people overwhelmingly applaud their sacrifice, even if they don't understand it.
Comparing US Soldiers to contractors? Pure crap. In reality, they could make far more as contractors, and some guys I knew are doing it now, and bragging about how much they're making every chance they get.
They see me as a schmuck for going back to get shot at for pennies on their dollars. They're probably right.
Of course, Noel. As you know, I very much fear the widening gap between our military and civilian cultures. During a time of universal male conscription, the bridge between the institution and the wider American democracy was shorter because so many needed to cross back and forth.
Having a small, professional AVF does two things: 1) It gives CINCs regardless of party the ability to wage wars with little Congressional oversight and even less concern about political damage; and, 2) It makes national defense someone else's "problem."
In the division of labor, the ultimate serf becomes the American Soldier, forever minding his or her place, not questioning authority embedded in the chain of command, cloistered apart from the American people, praised but ultimately misunderstood.
In no way are we -- or you, a commissioned officer in reserve status -- victims. We agreed under oath for the job, and it's an important one.
But we're certainly not getting rich on the deal, and what's the point of a parade when everyone is too busy getting shot at to do the promenade?
If I can help it, I avoid flying in my ACUs, but orders are orders and sometimes that's the uniform required, especially on unit deployments. The unfailing spirit of the American people as a Soldier walks through Duty Free is amazing.
People applaud. Men come and shake your hands. They want to buy you a beer. Old women try to give you money.
These sentiments are real. They mean something. I'm not going to denigrate these kindnesses repeated every day across the nation.
I just wish they would share in some of the sacrifice. I've come to favor a draft. Not because the men and women we have now aren't worthy of their service, nor because it would make OIF and OEF easier.
It's because we've lost that link between the civilian and the martial world. Law, policy and cost-shaving turned me from a citizen soldier into a "warrior."
I'm tired of being a warrior. I'd like to go back to being just a Soldier.
It certainly is bullshit because I don't believe it. It's double bullshit because if I was in charge of manpower under the CSA I wouldn't let these people in.
Briefly: MSR misreads my argument, in part, at least, because he's fighting at least a two front war in this thread.
The point I was making about the survival of the unfit in organizations was not about the enlisted ranks but about the officers-senior officers. In peacetime/normal economic functioning, armies/big companies will promote a higher than safe number of functionaries; often, in crisis, those functionaries will cling to positions they should not hold in disproportionate numb