An army's morale on the downswing (scorching!)

[Barrett808]

William Pfaff: An army's morale on the downswing
William Pfaff International Herald Tribune
Wednesday, December 29, 2004

PARIS When George W. Bush was first elected president, civil-military relations in the United States were worse than they had ever been before. They are no better today, for more serious reasons.

The decline had begun with the Vietnam War. The less perspicacious part of the officer corps chose to blame civilian interference for the loss in that war.

What the military would have done in Vietnam without civilian interference remains unclear; they never offered the government a coherent alternative plan to the one provided by Robert McNamara, Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. This was undoubtedly because there wasn't one - the war was unwinnable, short of the Dresden option (an option retested in November at Falluja in Iraq).

With the Vietnam defeat, the years of the "hollow army" began, with an angry and alienated military leadership, unsympathetic politicians and an amnesiac public.

(more)

http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2004/12/28/news/edpfaff.html

[NMDemDist2]

1. true words here indeed!

However, you must not abuse even a professional army. It too can rebel, and as in the citizen army, disaffection starts at the bottom, where the most pain is felt.

Iraq is now destroying the professional army the United States recruited to take the place of its citizen army. The new army was intended to serve as the unquestioning instrument of the policies of the elected administration. This administration's refusal to supply the manpower and means necessary for its vast military and political ambitions is now having its effect on that army. Its politically inspired fear of conscription, the merciless combat rotation policy and systematic use of involuntary extensions of duty its policies impose, are devastating to troops.

[puddycat]

2. an all volunteer, professional military is antithetical to our principles

Here's why: it promotes a dangerous military class whose purpose is not to serve the country and the people, but to serve the ruling class of capitalists.

I believe in mandatory "service" for all young people, but that service would be divided into military, but mostly, social service areas. For two years our young people would be of service to their fellow citizen, and those who choose soldiering would guard the borders, etc., unless needed for bona-fide wars of defense. Those involved in social service would be trained militarily, in case needed. There would be no exemptions, and those daughters and sons of their rich would be required to serve.

The present system does not serve the principles of our founding fathers, to whom everyone was a potential member of the militia.
To continue the present system, where a permanent warrior class services the rich, is the beginning of the end.

[Tace]

5. I've Often Thought Along Similar Lines -- Upon Reflection On You Post...

however, a number of issues came to mind. I'll try to set them out constructively without trying to be comprehensive.

--I wouldn't want any such thing to be undertaken by the present regime. It would be a nightmare of fascist indoctrination and medical inoculations.

--Such service would not need to be only national. It seems to me that service in any level of government, with a focus on local government, would be good. For example, most children could work in their own communities, in the various departments of their town, county, or state governments. This would provide a wonderful apprenticeship or internship program for millions of children.

--The program could be structured much like our governments are structured, with a large degree of autonomy for states and counties, instead of a purely federal program, like our national military.

--Service need not include military indoctrination. I'm a Quaker, and I sure as hell do not want my children indoctrinated and trained by the military -- no way. However, I am teaching them to be an asset to the community and the world, and I would have no problem with them working on some non-violent, socially just, project. We don't have to take on the gargantuan task of directly providing housing and feeding and providing military healthcare to all participants. Participants could either live at home, with their parents, or they could live on their own in many cases. Housing of all these kids in barracks or dorms would present many, many problems that would have to be addressed. It also would provide an opportunity to directly address the drug and alcohol abuse that afflicts so many kids.

--It means that every child would have a job. We would instantly solve the problem of unemployment among our youth. Plus, everyone would have two years of solid employment experience when they finished. They could take this with them into the private or government workforce.

--Such a program should include every single child between the ages of 18 and 20. As you said, everyone would have to do it. Even the emotionally, mentally and physically handicapped would benefit from participation in such a program -- although they possibly would require more resources than would be justified in a cost/benefit analysis, it still could be a great benefit for them, and ultimately all of us.

--I don't think it would hurt anyone to start college at 20 instead of 18. Older students are more mature and better able to use and benefit from the resources of our higher education system.

These are just a few thoughts on the matter. I wouldn't mind discussing them and considering the ideas of others here. Cheers.

edit: I should have run spellcheck. It doesn't work on-edit.

[puddycat]

8. Yes, you're right--military training should only be an option

I was think along the lines of some kind of basic boot camp from where they disperse into their fields--but your way is better. But service would be the key word.

It rankles me to hear people talk of the military as if they were the only people who ever do "service" for their country.

[AllegroRondo]

6. They do something similar in Germany

I lived there for a couple years. All males age 18 are required to either join the Army for 18 months or do a Social Service equivalent for 24 months.

The social service was always local, I knew several people who had worked as ambulance drivers or hospital staff.

[dannynyc]

3. There is a stark difference between Iraq and Vietnam . . .

During the Vietnam era, many vets came back to the US and fought an attitude that they were being blamed for the war. I remember one roommate of mine used to sing a song - something like "There would be no war if Mammas would not let their sons go" . . . (Of course, that was when the draft was only for males.) I am glad the actual troops aren't being blamed (except by the Bushites when it's convenient) for the mess in Iraq.

But, between the reports of lack of planning in Iraq and lack of supplies for the troops, who woul dwant to join the Army or Guard?

[puddycat]

9. you don't think military men have a responsbility as human beings?

Your post is just another reflection of how deep the cultural myth of the military goes in our culture--many Americans like to call the people who went to Vietnam and fought "heroes". I call the young men who went to Canada and avoided the draft my heroes because they stood up for what was right and refused to go and fight a poor people who were victims of the greed of the American military industrial complex.

And as far as Iraq, if those troops think they are absolved for their actions simply because they wear a uniform they are wrong. I'm not buying into that cultural myth.

[bpilgrim]

4. "the Dresden option (an option retested in November at Falluja in Iraq)"

This was undoubtedly because there wasn't one - the war was unwinnable, short of the Dresden option (an option retested in November at Falluja in Iraq).

even the japanese didn't flaten NANKING :puke:


Japanese aircraft bombed south Shanghai Station Aug.28,1937.
About 200 people in the waiting room were dead or wounded by the bombing. A crying baby was left alone after the bombing. - "Life" Oct. 4, 1937

peace

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

7. Yadda yadda eveb the nazi germans had that myth of civilian interference

that allegedly twarted victory in war (WW1) they called it "Dolchstosslegende"