Monday, August 22, 2005
Reality Check
Let's sugarcoat the military experience. There are so many things wrong with this approach to recruitment. Another Op-Ed from Mr. Herbert at the NYTimes sheds some light where needed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Everyone who joins or even looks at joining the US military are more than aware about the risks of joining the Armed Forces. If not, then maybe their deadbeat parents should forced to join the ranks of the military for raising kids with no common sense! And for those who join up and claim, “I thought I would never have to see combat” here is the oath for enlistment that every service member swears to upon enlisting.
The Oath of Enlistment (for enlistees):
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
Need I say more?
I see Herbert's off his meds again:
Stop fighting unnecessary wars, or reinstate the draft.
Essentially, he's advocating conscript-driven imperialism--the exact opposite of his thematic lead. Yes, I understand he's attempting to be satirical, but he fails utterly. (Herbert has a record of that.)
Here's another thing he fails to mention: The vast majority, (in my personal experience, over 95%) of those in combat arms units (the people who actually do the fighting) are there because they want to be there; they're volunteers.
I volunteered for six years of active infantry service in the Marine Corps. My GT score was over 140; I could've asked for any job I wanted in the military, up to and including nuclear technician. I chose infantry for personal reasons, and I made the choice very consciously. I knew exactly what might happen to me in combat. But it was my choice. I later volunteered for three years service in a LRRP company in the Army National Guard. LRRPs traditionally have the highest casualty rate among all combat arms units, (over 75% in Vietnam). Again, I knew exactly what I was doing. So did everybody else in the unit. If you didn't want to be there any more, all you needed do was say the word, and you were gone faster than alcohol on a hot skillet.
If we reinstitute a draft, we go right back to putting people in combat units who don't want to go to combat. It's the worst possible solutiuon for the problem.
I agree that we need to get out of Iraq, but not for the reasons this article--or most leftists--state. We need to be out because those people don't want freedom, they didn't fight for freedom (we did it for them) and they won't keep it for more than two years after we leave. That's because the whole region is filled with a bunch of superstitious camel-herders who think brutal misogyny is a valid life principle. The only way they'll be free of home-grown dictators permanently is if they decide to make themselves free. They haven't yet made that choice, and we're paying for their heel-dragging with our own young blood. I fought in the first Gulf War; I have lost personal friends in this current war; and I've had enough of the Muslims and their stinking deserts.
Again, make no mistake; I am not opposed to economic imperialism. Not in the least. But if we're going to do it, then we should be doing it whole hog: military governers, enforced imperial law, and permanent auxiliaries drawn from conquered lands. You can't play at imperialism; that'll just get you into deeper trouble.
But if we're not going to do so, then we should immediately go back to pre-20th century American foreign policy standards, where "expeditionary" warfare was anathema to military and civilian leaders alike, and isolationism was the watchword.
Teddy Roosevelt set us on the path of world economic domination nearly a century ago. Now we have to decide if we're willing to do what's necessary to preserve that domination, of if we wish to go back into our shell.
For my part, I don't much care either way. But it's important to remember that we can't have it both ways; either we're an empire, or we're a republic. Trying to be both will land us on the discard pile of history. And THAT is my primary digression from Bush's foreign policy; it's half-assed in every regard. He knows what needs to be done, but he's not got the political will to do it. Bill Clinton did the same thing, only in the opposite direction: he wanted to be isolationist and 19th century America--he just didn't know how to do it.
Either way, this war is going to play itself out--at the latest, by spring of 2007. Political realities will dictate, by that point. We'll see if the Dems can come up with an electable presidential candidate this time--and if the Republicans can hold onto their Congressional majority. It's not looking good for the latter in '06.
Wars, even nominally succcessful wars, have a way of sorting the men from the boys, both on the battlefield and in Washington. It's just a matter of which way the political fallout is going to blow.
Thanks fundy, I appreciate having the Oath of Enlistment for reference. It does drive an excellent point home.
Thanks also to jaregghead for your detailed comments. I think Herbert can be extreme and he can also be a catalyst for discussion which I like.
Post a Comment