People who've never been to war should not be allowed to play army with REAL SOLDIERS.

[rhiannon55]

I want this on a bumper sticker.

The quote came from this excellent essay by Mythsaje. Check it out. I wanted to make sure that more people read it--sometimes threads drop fast as DUers' fingers fly across the cyberlandscape...We're a thoughtful and chatty bunch!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3116216

[illinoisprogressive]

1. If it becomes a bumper sticker let me know. I want one.

[Little Wing]

Pretty Simpleton sounding to me

[Mythsaje]

9. Sometimes simple works...

If a Commander In Chief who's never been to war wants to send our soldiers into battle, he damn well should be listening to those who HAVE been there.

This whole damn plan has been worked out by people who've never fought, for political reasons, who've ignored the advice of those who know the business.

They've been playing war with real people who bleed and die.

And are now expecting US to clean up their mess.

Not all that simple, when you get right down to it.

[originalpckelly]

2. I don't know if that's a great idea. We do have this thing called civilian control of the military.

It's supposed to keep us from being a military dictatorship.

And there have been some great non-military war Presidents, FDR comes to mind.

The sad thing here is that there needs to be competent civilian control of the military.

Germany has a system which allows soldiers to choose whether or not to be assigned to a foreign conflict, and they aren't notoriously lacking in discipline in the military. Maybe we should consider allowing soldiers in America to do the same, and on top of that allow them the ability to choose when they sign up to limit their service to a particular conflict. In our country a lot of soldiers signed up to help fight in Afghanistan, but they were later sent to Iraq, something which they probably didn't intend to do.

Of course, one has to even wonder if the whole system as it is allows for this type of imperialistic use of military force. This nation ought to only fight wars of self defense, that's the only reason people have the right to kill others. Our system can and is being abused and allows for wars which are not self defense.

Maybe we should have a general military training program, and then require no formal service other than that of training. Then when a time of war comes, it should be the choice of all people as to whether they will fight, and if it's a war we have a right to fight, people will want to join a military unit. Without joining they'll be a sitting duck.

[Mythsaje]

11. A President without personal military experience

who's never BEEN to war, should listen to the advice of those who have, not the advice of theorists who know nothing about it other than what they've read.

Otherwise all he's doing is playing war games with real lives.

[Spider Jerusalem]

3. That sounds rather ridiculous, really...

so does that mean that you think the system of civilian control and oversight of the military we have here in the US is a bad thing? Or that FDR, who was never in the military, was the wrong choice to lead the country through WWII? Or that Bill Clinton, who never served in the military, had no business sending US troops into Bosnia and Somalia? Just because the current commander-in-chief is a worthless fuckup doesn't mean that it's a BAD thing to have a commander-in-chief who never went to war.

[rhiannon55]

5. Look, I was just pointing people to Mythsaje's essay

because I thought it was worth a wider audience than it seemed to receive today. I did not mean to start an argument about who can send people to war. I just (probably simple-mindedly, as another poster made sure to point out) liked the quote. I don't think ANYONE should be able to send people to war, but hey, WTF do I know?

I hereby change my subject line to HEY GUYS, CHECK OUT MYTHSAJES'S THOUGHT-PROVOKING ESSAY.

Sheesh.

[Mythsaje]

8. Doing what needs to be done

is a lot different than playing with the lives and deaths of real people for nothing more than one's own ambition.

[Spider Jerusalem]

13. Obviously...

and I personally wouldn't have any problem at all with an American president employing military force when needed, irrespective of his or her military background or lack thereof. I'm not a pacifist; I happen to think that there are times when military action is not only justifiable, but necessary (pre-emptive wars of choice are neither, though; the last war America was involved in--perhaps the ONLY war America was involved in---that was both justifiable and necessary was WWII).

[Mythsaje]

14. Absolutely...

But when the military decisions are being made almost exclusively by theorists, and nearly all the advisors are people completely divorced from the reality of the situation they're putting the soldiers into, without any relevant experience, that's a serious problem...and, in my opinion, little better than playing army with the lives of real soldiers.

[WinkyDink]

4. So, no Hillary, John Edwards, or Obama for you, eh?

[Mythsaje]

Why, do you think THEY would play army with real soldiers?

Or do you think they'd be more thoughtful and considerate before sending our troops off to war?

[Skittles]

6. as a veteran I would temper that a bit

I'd say PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER SERVED SHOULD NOT BE WARMONGERERS"

[TreasonousBastard]

7. You mean like FDR? n/t

[Mythsaje]

10. Did FDR play army?

Or did he send troops out to fight a real war against a real enemy? Did he listen to his experienced advisors, or did he allow a bunch of political hacks to make military decisions?

[lynne]

20. And Abe Lincoln -

- 600,000+ dead American's on his watch.

[TreasonousBastard]

21. I was going to mention Lincoln, but...

I thought he did have some military service before he got into politics.

Not that he saw a lot of action, though.

[NoPasaran]

22. Lincoln served a few weeks in a militia outfit during an Indian rebellion

I think it would be honest to say that he actually had less military experiance than GWB, who did, after all, actually learn to fly jet fighters.

[OneBlueSky]

12. I don't necessarily agree that someone who hasn't served in the military . . .

shouldn't be in a position to make decisions about war and peace . . .

I am of the opinion, however, that idiots and morons should be excluded from positions of life-and-death responsiblity . . .

[Mythsaje]

15. I think the relevant point is "playing army"

not making decisions. Someone who's serious about it, and wants to do it right, gets advice from people who know what they're talking about. People who just want to play wargames with real people get their advice from theorists and others with no experience of their own.

[rhiannon55]

23. That's it, Mythsaje. That's why,

I quoted you in my subject line and inadvertently started this discussion. It's the "playing army" that I object to. I would love to have a commander in chief who has never killed anyone; I would think that he or she would think long and hard and listen to the people and to advisers with real experience before starting wars. But then, if we had a president who HAD been to war, maybe he or she would be just as thoughtful before sending people to kill and die in a senseless war. Either way, the commander in chief/president would need a conscience and a gift for diplomacy, two traits which, as we all know, Bush does not have.

Bush and his cronies are playing games with people's lives and they have no empathy for or understanding of what those people are going through. War is a exciting, macho computer game to them, a game that they'll always do anything to win. People don't matter, war profits do.

[fishwax]

16. i'm in agreement with you there n/t

[fishwax]

17. double post

and yet, it doesn't show up in "my posts" at all :shrug:

[MonkeyFunk]

18. Bumper Sticker governance

is like a parachute. It only functions when the pentagon holds bake sales for whirled peas.

Or something like that.

[MonkeyFunk]

19. dupe post

[genie_weenie]

24. There should be no Imperial Military.

It exists to invade and open markets for American "Usage", oft times referred to as interests.