Friday, May 14, 2004
War really is hell--just ask the Soldiers
The slogan 'Support our Troops, Bring them Home' has been a litmus test of patriotism for decades. Anti-war proponents maintain that the best thing we can do for our soldiers is to keep them out of harms way unless absolutely necessary, while John Wayne-styled patriots assert that any public dissent about war ends and means stabs our troops in the back.
Military opinion with regard to these opposing views usually ebbs and flows depending on circumstances, and right now it would appear to be shifting ever more so toward the 'bring them home' camp.
Witness this week's unprecedented editorial that appeared simulaneously in all four-branches' semi-official newspapers that called for the resignation of top officials in the Department of Defense such as Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Myers.
While this editorial was written specifically about the failure of high-ranking leadership with regard to the Abu Gharaib prison scandal, many see that as just one further, albeit glaring, failure of how the entire war has been conducted to date.
Sidney Blumenthal, writing for The Guardian, wondered quite openly about the possibility of a military coup in the making. I think such an event is highly, highly improbable (it would certainly mark the end of the republican experiment called the United States were it to occur), clearly some folks are thinking about such a possibility. The prize winning essay of 1992's National Defense University was entitled "The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012." It posited a scenario whereby an incompetent civilian government put its military into a position so difficult that the commanders removed that government. Blumenthal closed his piece by noting that recently unearthed copies of "(t)he Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012 is today circulating among top US military strategists."
Of far more immediate interest is the following passage:
"William Odom, a retired general and former member of the National Security Council who is now at the Hudson Institute, a conservative thinktank, reflects a wide swath of opinion in the upper ranks of the military. "It was never in our interest to go into Iraq," he told me. It is a "diversion" from the war on terrorism; the rationale for the Iraq war (finding WMD) is "phoney"; the US army is overstretched and being driven "into the ground"; and the prospect of building a democracy is "zero". In Iraqi politics, he says, "legitimacy is going to be tied to expelling us. Wisdom in military affairs dictates withdrawal in this situation. We can't afford to fail, that's mindless. The issue is how we stop failing more. I am arguing a strategic decision."
And lest one think that such ideas are circulating only among the upper ranks of our military and its theorists, note the story Sgt. Seth Cole told Florida elementary students. He told them that, "In the beginning, I was keen to go. I couldn't wait to do my part," Cole said. "But then my philosophy changed. I thought what we were doing was just, but I didn't like the way the military was treating its soldiers."
He detailled supply shortages, bad equipment, and short-sighted, meaningless missions in which he was involved. While proud of his service, as well he should be, he was obviously disillusioned by his experience. He made his remarks to the school in which his mother taught, who said:
"He put everything into context, the reality of violence," she said. "And I said to him later, this is one of those things from elementary school they will probably remember forever."
He closed with the following comments:
"Cole asked the students not to be impressed with his stories about guns and bombs but to go home and give their parents a hug."
"Life is short and life is very precious," said Cole, a salesman who lives in Boston. "If you remember anything I've told you, please remember that."
Amen.
The slogan 'Support our Troops, Bring them Home' has been a litmus test of patriotism for decades. Anti-war proponents maintain that the best thing we can do for our soldiers is to keep them out of harms way unless absolutely necessary, while John Wayne-styled patriots assert that any public dissent about war ends and means stabs our troops in the back.
Military opinion with regard to these opposing views usually ebbs and flows depending on circumstances, and right now it would appear to be shifting ever more so toward the 'bring them home' camp.
Witness this week's unprecedented editorial that appeared simulaneously in all four-branches' semi-official newspapers that called for the resignation of top officials in the Department of Defense such as Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Myers.
While this editorial was written specifically about the failure of high-ranking leadership with regard to the Abu Gharaib prison scandal, many see that as just one further, albeit glaring, failure of how the entire war has been conducted to date.
Sidney Blumenthal, writing for The Guardian, wondered quite openly about the possibility of a military coup in the making. I think such an event is highly, highly improbable (it would certainly mark the end of the republican experiment called the United States were it to occur), clearly some folks are thinking about such a possibility. The prize winning essay of 1992's National Defense University was entitled "The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012." It posited a scenario whereby an incompetent civilian government put its military into a position so difficult that the commanders removed that government. Blumenthal closed his piece by noting that recently unearthed copies of "(t)he Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012 is today circulating among top US military strategists."
Of far more immediate interest is the following passage:
"William Odom, a retired general and former member of the National Security Council who is now at the Hudson Institute, a conservative thinktank, reflects a wide swath of opinion in the upper ranks of the military. "It was never in our interest to go into Iraq," he told me. It is a "diversion" from the war on terrorism; the rationale for the Iraq war (finding WMD) is "phoney"; the US army is overstretched and being driven "into the ground"; and the prospect of building a democracy is "zero". In Iraqi politics, he says, "legitimacy is going to be tied to expelling us. Wisdom in military affairs dictates withdrawal in this situation. We can't afford to fail, that's mindless. The issue is how we stop failing more. I am arguing a strategic decision."
And lest one think that such ideas are circulating only among the upper ranks of our military and its theorists, note the story Sgt. Seth Cole told Florida elementary students. He told them that, "In the beginning, I was keen to go. I couldn't wait to do my part," Cole said. "But then my philosophy changed. I thought what we were doing was just, but I didn't like the way the military was treating its soldiers."
He detailled supply shortages, bad equipment, and short-sighted, meaningless missions in which he was involved. While proud of his service, as well he should be, he was obviously disillusioned by his experience. He made his remarks to the school in which his mother taught, who said:
"He put everything into context, the reality of violence," she said. "And I said to him later, this is one of those things from elementary school they will probably remember forever."
He closed with the following comments:
"Cole asked the students not to be impressed with his stories about guns and bombs but to go home and give their parents a hug."
"Life is short and life is very precious," said Cole, a salesman who lives in Boston. "If you remember anything I've told you, please remember that."
Amen.
Comments:
Post a Comment
