Career soldiers or mercenaries ?

[kentuck]

Are our professional soldiers fighting for our country or fighting for money and career? Or are they fighting for whatever corporate interest needs protecting? Does anyone else get an uneasy feeling watching these "soldiers" being interviewed on cable television? "It's my job", they say. "I'm doing this because it is the right thing to do".

There is something unreal and difficult to define in these new "soldiers". Since when did they start making "political" decisions about their missions? The "right thing to do" in Iraq is to help those people build their country, they say. But are they really "helping" the people of Iraq?

But there is an uncomfortable component in attempting to define these career soldiers. They don't appear to be the "conventional" soldier we have been accustomed to seeing in battles or in combat. They are different. They have the appearance of mercenaries but they get paid less than mercenaries? But they approach their mission like mercenaries. Where are their real loyalties?

No doubt, people will ask "where are your loyalties" to question our soldiers? My concerns are to what extent will these "soldiers" go to fulfill the mission of their Commander in Chief? Would they think twice about doing the same mission in American streets that they are doing in the streets of Baghdad? There is something about the "new" soldier that I find very unsettling and uncomfortable. Difficult to define...

[shadowgrouse]

1. A few years ago

a couple of Majors in the Army did a paper analyzing the issue of how would most soldiers respond to the idea of "peace keeping" in America. It got spun out of control because they did a survey and some people mistook it for an official Army survey as opposed to 2 guys in Command and General Staff College doing a research paper. But the bottom line is that most soldiers said "No."

As for the "just doing my job" I think you are taking it the wrong way. Many soldiers are uncomfortable with the whole "hero" bit some people push so they respond by saying "Hey, I am just a guy doing my job." Lots of cops and firefighters will tell you the same thing.

Lastly, maybe they think they are helping the people of Iraq, and don't you think they have a better view of what they are doing than you or I would?

[kentuck]

3. ..and don't you think they have a better view..."?

War is a different reality. As a Vietnam vet, I understand that to a small extent. Yes, we had a job to do, but we never really looked at it from the "political" viewpoint that it is now presented, in my opinion. There is something about the "new" soldier that I find very disturbing. I don't feel that they are protecting me or my country.

[shadowgrouse]

5. So, you think

they all just ran out and became mercenaries?

Or perhaps it is a natural reaction to the spectre of Vietnam. Most soldiers, even the young ones are very familiar with the Vietnam experience and none of them want to think that what they did and what they sacrificed for was in vain, so of course they are going to say they believe in what they are doing.

[jarab]

9. You need to do better than this ...

"...Most soldiers, even the young ones are very familiar with the Vietnam experience...."
...O...

[shadowgrouse]

20. So you are going to

claim that most soldiers DON'T know about Vietnam and the way veterans were treated after the war? The Army and the Marine Corp in particular have a LONG institutional memory and while most of the leadership now is post Vietnam they all cut their teeth hearing stories from their First Sergeants and Sergeant Majors about how they got treated after Vietnam. Those stories become part of the folklore and get passed down.

[kentuck]

10. As i said....

it is very difficul to define. It's almost a crowd mentality. They are indeed an "army of one". Their submissiveness to command, their willingness to follow orders without question, their loss of individuality, the "brain-washed" appearance of most of our troops that we see on TV, is different from my perspective. I do think most are in the military are in it for the bucks and retirement benefits, yes. Contrary to what they may say.

[shadowgrouse]

15. I take that to mean

you don't acutally know many soldiers, just the ones you see on TV. These are the same charges people have been leveling against the military since the '60s. They weren't true then and they aren't true now.

[kentuck]

25. Actually, you are incorrect...

I have worked directly and indirectly with troops going and returning from Iraq. There was a headline in the Colorado Springs Gazette this AM about "Hundreds of Iraq-Bound soldiers re-up" that spurred the thought.

[shadowgrouse]

27. the ones I see

don't seem brain washed or submissive at all. And most hate "An Army of One" and would rather go back to "being all they could be."

What is so suprising about them re-enlisting? They believe in what they are doing.

[kentuck]

33. Yes. One of the quotes from one of the soldiers

"I owe it to my boys to be there one more time"...He will separate from his wife whom he married two months ago. According to the article, "Most said they decided to stay in the Army to be with the soldiers they fought beside during the regiment's first yearlong tour in Iraq."

I appreciate what the guys are going thru there. It is war. This is really the first "war" since Vietnam, in my opinion, with all due respects to the First Gulf War veterans.

I do not know your age. And I see that you are a soldier. But, as an older vet, I can only give my perspective.

[shadowgrouse]

39. I'm just trying to say

that you get one rather narrow view from the news. Somtimes good, sometimes bad. I would be willing to bet that most of my guys aren't that much different than you remember from your days. Minus the drafted part of course. They come from all walks of life and have all different dreams. They aren't brainwashed, submissive or anything else. Some disagree with our being here, others agree 100% and everything in between.

[kentuck]

I am somewhat relieved by that comment shadowgrouse..

and welcome to DU! We love our country too.

[shadowgrouse]

44. Thank you

nice to be hear.

[lcordero]

2. I hate to tell you but

Most people that join the military do so in order to get the Army College Fund, the GI Bill, or a tuition waiver. A lot of them do so because they are the victims of circumstance.

[kentuck]

4. Money ?

Most cannot find jobs that will pay as well on the outside. Many are mercenaries on the cheap, it seems to me.

[shadowgrouse]

6. That isn't true

either, we have an amazingly well educated millitary. Many joined the military because they wanted to, and for a variety of reasons, to dismiss them all as "they joined because they couldn't get a job" is nonsense.

[kentuck]

13. So, why do you think "'most" joined the military?

I would like to hear your specifics.

[shadowgrouse]

19. Everyone has their

own reason. Some joined for college money, some joined out of a sense of Patriotism, some joined because they wanted the adventure, some were looking for a career. I could go on and on... but everyone has a different story. Like I said, they all have their own stories.

[tx_dem41]

22. So soldiers shouldn't get paid?

I don't get your complaint at all. Should you do your job for free?

[kentuck]

26. My job doesn't involve killing people to defend my country.

But yes, people should be paid for their "jobs".

[tx_dem41]

30. So you shouldn't get paid for defending your country? n/t

[kentuck]

35. That shouldn't be your primary motivation.

yes. It's come a long way since my first paychck for $90 a month to "defend my country".

[tx_dem41]

38. Just because you emphasize a "career", doesn't mean....

you are motivated solely by money. Having worked with the military every day for the last 20 years, I value the ones that stay and gain experience and pass on knowledge to the new soldiers.

[kentuck]

45. And did you support this "war" from the beginning?

Just curious? :)

[tx_dem41]

46. No, I have always thought this was a "wrong" war.

But, that doesn't mean I don't have respect for most of the soldiers fighting it.

[kentuck]

50. I understand that rationale.

I think it was a wrong war, also. i wonder if all the soldiers in Iraq think it is the right war??

[shadowgrouse]

53. Nope,

"all" the soldiers don't think any one view. Just like all the people anywhere don't agree on everything.

[tx_dem41]

55. Thanks for chiming in, Shadwgrouse

and welcome to DU!

[RafterMan]

7. What is your baseline?

Are you sure you're not matching them up against Hollywoodized propaganda people from too many WWII films?

They seem much like any soldiers I've ever read about in history.

[kentuck]

12. You may be right...

Perhaps it is only my perspective? They are no different from any other soldiers we have had in the past?

[shadowgrouse]

18. You only get

one perspective on the news. There are 130,000 some odd troops in Iraq. They all joined for different reasons and they all have different feelings about things. Also, many appear that way on the news because they are distrustful of the media, they don't want to say anything that might get spun or otherwise taken out of context.

[ElectroPrincess]

8. The true professional senior military soldiers were purged

by Rumsfeld during the early days of the lead up to the Iraqi Invasion. When the top leadership is corrupt, no matter how genuinely patriotic and moral the subordinate Officers and NCOs may be, like the Democratic Party, they have their hands tied to do anything to stop the atrocities. All they can sanely accomplish is to minimize the abuse of power and limit the damage to their subordinate troops and the civilians they are tasked to oversee.

Think about it folks? Why is it that the ONLY charges of abuse that are begrudgingly ADMITTED by the "top brass" of the USA military is the undeniably ones that come with pictures and videos?

I submit that "the average" Infantry troop sees numerous breeches of the UCMJ and mishandling of prisoners ... I'd even feel confident in claiming that many if not most of these soldiers KNOW that the actions of their peers and superiors are wrong. However, the only control one particular officer or NCO has, IS over his OWN troops. Even then, he will NOT be supported if he chooses to charge one of his subordinates of war crimes BECAUSE his superiors will promptly dismiss him.

The buck stops with the Civilian Leaders and the Top Brass of the Military. However, like *, they will NEVER admit any fault on their part - only low ranking subordinates ... a few bad apples.

And ya know what? The republican leadership in the congress does not have enough moderates with the moral integrity to push this to the wire. Any McCain admirers out there? Don't hold your breath. :(

[shadowgrouse]

11. What are these purges

of which you speak? Surely you are not referring to Shinseki retiring on schedule?

As for "begrudginly admitted" that certain prison scandal was being investigated and action was being taken by the military BEFORE the news broke.

As for your claims about what the average infantry soldier sees, that is pure speculation on your part. Unless you have been there you don't know.

[ElectroPrincess]

14. He was "minimized" "isolated" "chastized" by Rummy's boys

And when he FORMALLY retired, he was standing there as a glaring example of what NOT to stand for as a General Military Officer within the pentagon.

Yep, another right wing radical talking point: Oh, those Generals were all supportive of Rumsfeld save for that one ROGUE (and highly respected) ba*tard.

I've seen (and been informed a lot). I'm a former Army vet. Both my father and brother are combat veterans. I've led a platoon of soldiers and talk frequently about the present situation to my retired USMC husband. Is that enough "understanding" for you?

[shadowgrouse]

17. Methinks it

takes more than one general to be purged, and if there were others then lets hear about them.

And as a Platoon Sergeant in Iraq as I type this is that enough "understanding" for you?

[RafterMan]

21. Welcome to DU, shadowgrouse!

Thanks for your service.

[ElectroPrincess]

28. Kiss a** ? If you get drafted, please don't volunteer for high risk.

Methinks he (or even me - who knows) is typing from Momma's basement apartment. ;)

[tx_dem41]

29. And if he's not? n/t

[ElectroPrincess]

36. Ask him a few questions?

First, he Shadowgrouse does NOT know what exactly the PURGES were at the pentagon. He has an incomplete understanding that many generals were forced out by making their life a "living hell".

He had no valid information on that topic, ergo "the understanding" is nil.

IF he is ... and this is a big if because, I would bet money NOT, he's here to disrupt us LIB - ER - AL.

Honest opinion: I LIVE among the right wing radicals. They'll tell you enough and lie to draw you in and then BAM!

Ok, I DARE not question anyone's validity here but let's wait and see what the future will bring?

I still am disquieted by folks who are so gullible to "suck up" to a person without increasingly valid information that they "in fact" are who they say ... with time you can put together a perception. This dude has 13 posts and you think he's a war hero. Granted, if he is overseas, that's great, HOWEVER, he is still "uninformed" on the General Officer purges and the Pentagon.

[tx_dem41]

42. Look, I agree with you on the Shinseki issue, but.....

I'm going to shown everyone a degree of respect until they lost the right to be treated that way. Shadowgrouse has the right to disagree with you and you have the right to debate him.

[shadowgrouse]

Perhaps

it is because there was no General Officer purge at the pentagon, although since Shinseki is the one that forced the beret on us I will admit to being glad to see him go(and for other reasons of course).

How am I here to disrupt anyone? Kentuck and I are having a pleasant discussion. The fact that I disagree with you is automatically disruptive?

[RafterMan]

32. And if he wasn't,

wouldn't you feel stupid?

Anyway, I think the two of you are arguing past each other. What you say about Rummy purging the generals is true, but the OP and shadowgrouse were talking about the rank and file.

[shadowgrouse]

31. Thank you Rafterman

nice to be here.

That is a FMJ reference isn't it?

[ElectroPrincess]

24. Gee, maybe, if you want to play one upsmanship

you might say hey to a LTC commander friend of mine in the "Triangle of Death." It takes one smartass to know another. :P

[shadowgrouse]

34. I would love to

but that places him a little outside my AOR, and I must admit, I do wonder what a squid would be doing in that area.

[ElectroPrincess]

40. He's not a squid but a JARHEAD ( USMC) ... but you are getting points

on terminology. Gee, you just may be real, I honestly do not know. Still, please read up on Rummy in the Pentagon. He's out of line and a significant number of senior officers have tendered their resignation due to the antics of his civilian leadership minions.

[shadowgrouse]

47. Well

sorry, even if it is Department of... I read that as LT Commander and missed the C, thus I thought you were giving a Navy rank.

[ElectroPrincess]

23. Proof of Rumsfeld assault on sitting Pentagon Generals ..

Many retired due to his arrogant leadership and "charge first" mentality.

Here ya go ... purge the *sane thinking* senior military leadership at the Pentagon. He is so awesome, but in a bad way. :(

"In the privacy of his office, Rumsfeld chafed over what he saw as the reluctance of senior Pentagon generals and admirals to act aggressively. By mid-2002, he and his senior aides were exchanging secret memorandums on modifying the culture of the military leaders and finding ways to encourage them “to take greater risks.” One memo spoke derisively of the generals in the Pentagon, and said, “Our prerequisite of perfection for ‘actionable intelligence’ has paralyzed us. We must accept that we may have to take action before every question can be answered.” The Defense Secretary was told that he should “break the ‘belt-and-suspenders’ mindset within today’s military . . . we ‘over-plan’ for every contingency. . . . We must be willing to accept the risks.”"

Excerpt from "Hersh Scorches 'em Again
http://wwww.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/9/15051/96562

[shadowgrouse]

37. This isn't proof

of a purge, but rather an attempt by Rumsfeld to change the culture in the Pentagon. The problem was that the Pentagon was still waiting for the Soviets to come rolling through the Fulda Gap. And there was still the "zero defect mentality" that started in the 70s. He didn't purge anyone, sane or otherwise.

[ElectroPrincess]

43. Ok, then whatever you want to call it Mister ... a large number

of senior military officers of high integrity resigned only to be replaced by spring-butt yes men for Rummy. You can call it pressure but, to me, it's a COVERT *purge*.

However, I finally believe that we are in agreement on the facts of this event over the course of 2002-2003?

[shadowgrouse]

48. First, look

at the current Army Chief of Staff, I can assure you he didn't come out of retirement to be Rumsfeld's yes man. As for all these others, I don't think there is a case to be made that all the people of integrity left. I wouldn't presume to question Gen Franks' integrity among others that stayed. Yes, some people who were hidebound to the old idea of what the Army should be left, just like the Battleship Admirals had to be nudged aside in WW2. We weren't fighting the Soviets anymore and anyone who couldn't adjust to that needed to find a new line of work. That doesn't mean being Rumy's yes man. There were still bitter fights over how we should transform and some are still going on.

[ElectroPrincess]

51. Go your own way "shadowgrous" - I'm done with you ...

Maybe others will become disenchanted with time but I'm fully done with debating you. You twist the issues. My point was addressing senior officers. I excelled in my military science classes in ROTC but this board doesn't deserve to watch us in a pissing contest.

On Edit (and last contribution to this thread) Here's a partial LIST and warning from a man of true integrity. Tommy Franks? ROTFL

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/928913/posts

Peace be with you.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eleny]

16. C-Span had an interesting call-in for contrast

Last week Brian Lamb hosted a call-in segment where he invited soldiers to call in if they'd been in Iraq. It was a mixed bag of opinions. So, a far more realistic picture emerged than the staged interviews with soldiers biased toward the administration.

A culture of interviews that are pro administration and seeing the footage with advanced weapons leads me to be afraid of what could happen in our streets. I didn't get that feeling before going to demonstrations against the war in Vietnam. So it was all the more horrifying when we were at the Pentagon and a row of Nat'l Guard just to my left on the hillside loaded up the tear gas cannisters - and shot them into the crowd as the crowd surged toward the entrance to the building. And then there was Ohio.

I hesitated to post my concerns as they might appear an attempt to dampen spirits intentionally. But the risks are there since the president threw down the declaration - you're either with us or against us. How different is he from Nixon? I think much different. Nixon may have been a paranoid. Bush is a sociopath with no conscience.

Now back to thinking about our soldiers and trying to imagine them returning from the horrors of Iraq and being put on our streets - armed. I'd be scared. But if there's a draft - so be it. I'll be there.

[kentuck]

41. The thread has been somewhat diverted...

but that's OK.

The further point is what role is the military playing in our society and "civilian control" of that military and not to have them beholden to one political Party or another and to what extent they see themselves as some separate entity from the rest of us and just how much do they honor and trust their present Commander in Chief?

[RafterMan]

49. That is a more interesting question

Have you read "The Coup of 2012"?

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/1992/dunlap.htm

It's a great little thought-piece (by an Air Force Colonel) about the military's role in society from the period after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Some of the debate is a little dated, but it's still a great read.

I think you'll really find it a rewarding read.

[kentuck]

54. I would like shadowgrouse's opinion on this ?

What is the role of the military in our society? Do the "regular' military people think of such things??

[eleny]

56. I'd expand on your question

What is the role of the military in our society - given that we have an all-volunteer military?

[shadowgrouse]

58. and I will turn

that question on its head: what SHOULD the role be? What kind of return do the people expect on their investment?

[shadowgrouse]

57. Yes, many do

I think there is some question as to what extent the military still reflects society. There are a number of reasons for that, but I think many (and please forgive me for making generalizations, I don't think for a moment you wouldn't be able to find someone in uniform that disagrees with me, but rather this is a synthesis of the feelings of the majority of people I have worked with over 12 years) see society as moving increasingly towards a lack of personal responsibility and the death of (I know its THAT WORD) values. Several of the guys in my unit were discussing the need for tort reform last night at chow. Most of them think this "sue first" mentality is assinine, if you dump hot coffee in your lap you deserve to get burned, get over it.
Ideas like duty and honor aren't just ideas to most, but they increasingly feel like they are meaningless in society at large.

That said, I think the idea of a coup is pure paranoia. The rank and file wouldn't go along with it the idea of civilian control of the military is still very strong.