"The Tragedy of the American Military" - The Atlantic
- Thread starter dimsum
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 67
- Points
- 530
The tragedy is that anyone would take Fallows seriously.He has been a liberal hack for as long as I can remember.He thinks having a draft would have kept us out of Iraq.Left leaning democrats have tried to resurrect the draft without success.He ignores 9-11 which saw the nation yearning for revenge.
- Reaction score
- 37
- Points
- 560
While Fallows may well be a "Liberal hack", some of his observations are telling (and indeed they could be transferred directly to Canada).
The sort of attention delivered to our armed forces by politicians and the public (the "mile wide but inch deep" support Edward always alludes to) and the huge disconnect between the public and the service members due to lack of any meaningful interaction (due to the tiny proportion of people who serve) is the same as being described in the article, and the consequences are similar as well.
The sort of attention delivered to our armed forces by politicians and the public (the "mile wide but inch deep" support Edward always alludes to) and the huge disconnect between the public and the service members due to lack of any meaningful interaction (due to the tiny proportion of people who serve) is the same as being described in the article, and the consequences are similar as well.
- Reaction score
- 67
- Points
- 530
Yet walk through any airport and watch the reaction to uniformed personnel.The interaction from the public is heartfelt and warm.A far cry from the 60's when some idiot would spit on a soldier.
The public supports the armed forces.I was on a flight where the remains of a fallen soldier was loaded onto the aircraft ands the cabin was very quiet.In the air passengers went to the escorting officer and thanked him and expressed their condolences.Very moving.
The military hierarchy made sure there was a general/flag officer at every funeral for a fallen service member.Something that we hadnt done before but was an important change in procedure.
The public supports the armed forces.I was on a flight where the remains of a fallen soldier was loaded onto the aircraft ands the cabin was very quiet.In the air passengers went to the escorting officer and thanked him and expressed their condolences.Very moving.
The military hierarchy made sure there was a general/flag officer at every funeral for a fallen service member.Something that we hadnt done before but was an important change in procedure.
tomahawk6 said:
Side note, there actually wasn't a single verified and corroborated instance of protesters or otherwise spitting on returning Vietnam veterans.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/2000/05/drooling_on_the_vietnam_vets.html
- Reaction score
- 6,326
- Points
- 1,260
tomahawk6 said:
I think one of the points that Mr Fallows was trying to make is that the very broad and (unlike Canada) visibly deep respect/affection which Americans, 'ordinary Americans' and politicians and the commentariat, show towards the military is not supported by much in the way of personal connection.
The more worrisome thing, in my opinion, is the lack of criticism of the military in the political arena.
I'm less worried than Mr Fallows by the personal "disconnect" issue; perhaps it is our British heritage which 'allows' for a remote, disconnected, professional military. I am more worried about the lack of political criticism ... I think it can and has led to bad strategy.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 47,427
- Points
- 1,160
I was attending a cocktail party (as you do) in the UK once upon a time and was asked by a General what I thought was required to make sure that the British were more supportive of their military.
Being a smart ass, and full of Bombay Sapphire, I looked him in the eye and said 'Sir,more Harrod's bombings and the Prime Minister's son in my rifle company on the next Belfast tour'.
I think this guy's pretty much nailed it.
Being a smart ass, and full of Bombay Sapphire, I looked him in the eye and said 'Sir,more Harrod's bombings and the Prime Minister's son in my rifle company on the next Belfast tour'.
I think this guy's pretty much nailed it.
- Reaction score
- 67
- Points
- 530
Kilo_302 said:
I enlisted in 72 and spent time in various airports that year some airports were better than others as far as respect shown to the uniform.The worst was SF.While no one spit on me,I defintely heard the stories from those that had been.Times have changed and I suspect that Fallows would wish to see those days again.The left was in their glory with tens of thousands of protestors in the streets.With the advent of the all volunteer force the left has not been able to get mobs in the streets.Now they have a new issue to get bodies in the streets.
- Reaction score
- 37
- Points
- 560
E.R. Campbell said:
VDH made a similar point in his book "Carnage and Culture"; one of the great institutional strengths of the "Western way of war" is the idea that the military and its leadership was always subject to audit by the Ekklassia, so the military leadership needed to be able to justify everything from the planning of operations, conduct of campaigns and even their expenses to the citizenry of the Polis. (My namesake, for example, ended up being banished by the Athenian assembly for allegedly not prosecuting his mission swiftly enough in the judgement of the assembly [many centuries later Admiral Byng was actually shot by the Admiralty for a similar offence]).
In the current environment, we have several issues preventing proper audit of the military by the elected assembly:
1. Lack of experience. Our legislators have no frame of reference to ask meaningful questions or understand detailed answers. Suggesting their staffers write the questions and study the transcripts does not solve the question; how many of the kids in short pants in Prime Minister Harper's office, for example, have any meaningful military experience?
2. "Gotcha" journalism and politics. People being placed on the stand are sensitive to the idea that the questions they receive and the answers they give may simply be used to score political points against them or someone's political opponents. They will be reluctant to cooperate or give full and frank answers when the most likely outcome will be public humiliation or even worse, simply to score a point in a newspaper or against another politician.
3. Bureaucratization of the institution. We have all heard our senior leadership described as bureaucrats in uniform. The incentive structure of the bureaucracy is not biased towards full and frank disclosure, quite the opposite in fact. Bamboozeling the political masters so you look good (recruiting thousands of people who served their entire three year contracts as PAT's because there were no resources to train and equip them in the early 2000's was largely a way of "showing" that there was sufficient manning in the forces after the numbers had dropped alarmingly), and the incentive to CYA so you don't get caught with your pants down by an embarrassing revelation or "gotcha" is extremely high. Not everyone is a bureaucrat, but there are plenty to be found.
- Reaction score
- 67
- Points
- 530
I find fault with the premise that there is no criticism of the military.Rather criticism occurs when there something goes wrong.Look at the A-10 retirement.Plenty to criticize.When something goes wrong find out what happened and then fix it.Expensive procurement programs should be criticized when its warranted.The biggest problem in the US military and has been this way for forty years is the fear of failure.Failure should be part of the learning process.Someone makes a mistake now and it ends a career.Here is an example.
Years ago during an exercise a young LT split his platoon into 2 sections to attack an objective.The company CO observed the attack from a chopper.It was a fiasco.The company CO relieved the LT from command.Said LT was assigned to the post Field House until he could be discharged from the Army.One mistake was a career ender instead of a learning experience.
Another exercise saw a LTC[P] who was on the Colonels list and was in nominal command of a brigade,screwed up and had units spread all over the exercise area with some even off the map.It was a cluster.Said officer went on to be a Major General commanding Operation Urgent Fury and then as a General commanded Desrt Shield/Desert Storm.
In his case a mistake was tolerated by the commanding general and Schwarzkopf was the better for the experience.
Years ago during an exercise a young LT split his platoon into 2 sections to attack an objective.The company CO observed the attack from a chopper.It was a fiasco.The company CO relieved the LT from command.Said LT was assigned to the post Field House until he could be discharged from the Army.One mistake was a career ender instead of a learning experience.
Another exercise saw a LTC[P] who was on the Colonels list and was in nominal command of a brigade,screwed up and had units spread all over the exercise area with some even off the map.It was a cluster.Said officer went on to be a Major General commanding Operation Urgent Fury and then as a General commanded Desrt Shield/Desert Storm.
In his case a mistake was tolerated by the commanding general and Schwarzkopf was the better for the experience.
tomahawk6 said:
I understand that the military has suffered from a lack of public understanding, and at times outright hostility. But I have to admit, I'm a bit short on empathy. You say the "Left was in its glory," without providing much context. Nick Turse's book, "Kill Anything That Moves" finally provides a meticulously researched account of US atrocities in Vietnam, and some much needed context. While I believe that protesters should never target individual soldiers, as I respect and admire the profession (rather they should target the institutions and power structures that get us to war in the first place), 2 million civilians were killed in Vietnam. Many of these deaths were deliberate, and a result of not only a loss of control at the small unit level, but overall policy at the command level. Given this reality, incidents of mistreatment of returning veterans seems like a relatively minor issue when we look at WHY people were opposed to the war.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-van-buren/nick-turse-kill-anything-that-moves_b_2897858.html
It was a good thing that people were in the streets over Vietnam, and also a good thing that they were for Iraq and Afghanistan. We live in a democracy after all, and going to war should never be taken lightly. Both of these wars were also lost at the cost of hundreds of thousands of civilian lives, and thousands of US/Coalition dead, not to mention trillions of dollars wasted. The threat of terrorism is still alive and well, so what have we gained? In light of the failures of the past decade, I think it is very reasonable to be critical of the military, and to monitor it's influence on foreign policy very closely. We should also be holding civilian leadership to account for using the military and war in general as a political tool to garner support.
- Reaction score
- 2,227
- Points
- 1,160
Thucydides:
I agree completely with your entire post. The media have a point of view and create the story to perpetuate that view. As most, if not the entirety of academia and the media is left wing, we know where they are going.
Testifying under oath is a joke.
UP or Out does not allow failure. We don't have that system in Canada.
I agree completely with your entire post. The media have a point of view and create the story to perpetuate that view. As most, if not the entirety of academia and the media is left wing, we know where they are going.
Testifying under oath is a joke.
UP or Out does not allow failure. We don't have that system in Canada.