The Tragedy of the American Military

[carlfense]

Fantastic long read. Too many good parts to quote so I'll just go with this one:

Mike Mullen thinks that one way to reengage Americans with the military is to shrink the active-duty force, a process already under way. The next time we go to war, he said, the American people should have to say yes. And that would mean that half a million people who werent planning to do this would have to be involved in some way. They would have to be inconvenienced. That would bring America in. America hasnt been in these previous wars. And we are paying dearly for that.

 

With their distance from the military, politicians dont talk seriously about whether the United States is directly threatened by chaos in the Middle East and elsewhere, or is in fact safer than ever (as Christopher Preble and John Mueller, of the Cato Institute, have argued in a new book, A Dangerous World?). The vast majority of Americans outside the military can be triply cynical in their attitude toward it. Triply? One: honoring the troops but not thinking about them. Two: caring about defense spending but really viewing it as a bipartisan stimulus program. Three: supporting a strong defense but assuming that the United States is so much stronger than any rival that its pointless to worry whether strategy, weaponry, and leadership are right.

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/

[TGHusker]

Interesting quote. I didn't read the long article - in a nutshell what is proposed?

[zoogs]

Read it, TG!

 

Aside from carl's blurb, which was very well-chosen, the article talks about accountability a lot. Both within the military itself for military failures, and for the politicians who push them.

 

During and after even successful American wars, and certainly after the standoff in Korea and the defeat in Vietnam, the professional military’s leadership and judgment were considered fair game for criticism. Grant saved the Union; McClellan seemed almost to sabotage it—and he was only one of the Union generals Lincoln had to move out of the way. Something similar was true in wars through Vietnam. Some leaders were good; others were bad. Now, for purposes of public discussion, they’re all heroes. In our past decade’s wars, as Thomas Ricks wrote in this magazine in 2012, “hundreds of Army generals were deployed to the field, and the available evidence indicates that not one was relieved by the military brass for combat ineffectiveness.” This, he said, was not only a radical break from American tradition but also “an important factor in the failure” of our recent wars.

I was just thinking about that earlier today, actually, while catching up on Jon Stewart and watching some Dick Cheney interview clips.

[Army Husker]

Good article, but nothing blazingly new there. The author even pointed out that these issues (at least the congressional quagmires involving poor spending habits in the military) were pointed out, or warned of, by Eisenhower himself.

 

I'm not quite sure that on one of the author's 3 main points, restoring the civil-military relationship, if fixed would solve the "tragedy of the American military". I felt he had his argument in a nutshell alone with congressional jockeying for money, lobbying by companies for contracts and said congress people getting jobs in their districts for votes. Interviewing generals and admirals for an article, the same officers responsible for arguing to get their respective services budgets, does not get down to the low soldiers who do have a great relationship with our country's populace. Then again, I may have read his point 3 wrong. It was a hell of a long article!

 

And we've had this discussion in an old thread in P&R here about ridiculous military spending (ie the Commanche helicopter). Nothing short of changing the way politics affects military research and spending joke that is will fix it.

[Something Clever]

All I could think about when reading about the rather superficial relationship most civilians tend to have with vets/the military was this:

 

 

 

[Junior]

All I could think about when reading about the rather superficial relationship most civilians tend to have with vets/the military was this:

 

 

 

 

Or putting this on their car:

 

 

Or "Hey, I bought one of these!!"

 

[knapplc]

What, specifically, should the general population do to "support the troops?"

[Junior]

What, specifically, should the general population do to "support the troops?"

 

Demand action on the VA rather than forgetting about it 20 minutes after it came to light.

[knapplc]

 

What, specifically, should the general population do to "support the troops?"

 

Demand action on the VA rather than forgetting about it 20 minutes after it came to light.

 

 

 

 

That's it? Seems too easy.

[Junior]

 

 

What, specifically, should the general population do to "support the troops?"

 

Demand action on the VA rather than forgetting about it 20 minutes after it came to light.

 

 

 

 

That's it? Seems too easy.

 

 

I'm not sure what you are expecting for a response.

[knapplc]

Making a phone call to your representative that they'll ignore doesn't seem a lot different than putting a magnet on your car.

[Junior]

Making a phone call to your representative that they'll ignore doesn't seem a lot different than putting a magnet on your car.

 

And one vote doesn't really make any difference so everyone should quit voting, right?

 

If you are serious about supporting the troops then you'll do more. But if 20,000 people made a phone call versus putting the magnet on the car, then you're onto something. Right?

[knapplc]

I'm serious about supporting the troops, the police, firefighters, the coast guard, veterans of all services, and the red cross. I support the fight against breast cancer, colon cancer, prostate cancer, leukemia, childhood apraxia, AIDS and any other disease. I support the fight for gay marriage, for the right to choose when you die, for women to choose about their bodies, for freedom of religion and free speech. I support the fight against slavery both foreign and domestic, the fight against puppy mills, and the fight against discrimination of any kind. I support net neutrality, the fight against corruption in politics, the fight against corruption in our banking sector, energy sector and natural resources.

 

I support probably another 100 things on top of that, and I'm serious about all of them.

 

But I don't have the bandwidth to get elbows deep into each of them. And I'm not a bad person if I don't, I'm just busy. And if I can't actively fight for all of the things I support in the amount of time I have, I don't think it's too awfully crass of me to put a magnet on my car for any or all of them as I choose.

 

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I'm also not going to buy into the notion that people who don't call their congresspersons about this particular subject are somehow at fault. not doing it right.

Edited January 7, 2015 by knapplc
better words.

[Landlord]

^ But let's be honest - the 'magnet' market doesn't exist because of people like you; it exists because of people that are great at self-deception or ego boosting by buying them.

[knapplc]

I do put voting above everything else on that list, though. I think a TON of those issues could be solved with more effective government, and I get the analogy you're giving with the "just one vote" line.