- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Since others responded to my writing...
In regards to the posting of Kevin0211
I agree with you.
I don't believe we as a nation were asked to sacrifice enough for this war. Only our volunteers and the family and employers connected to them, where asked to make any real or material sacrifice. Many of my colleagues lost their businesses and livelihoods when called to service.
We were offered a war and a tax cut simultaneously. Please show me anywhere in history where this happened successfully. We are trying to have guns and butter.
I believe we should have a draft not because we need more soldiers, but we need our military to reflect our diversity. If there is ever an article about it, I might share more of my thoughts on that.
As an officer I can tell you 9 out of 10 of my colleagues are conservative and Republican. The research may show it to be slightly less than that, but in my experience, I am a "token lefty" in the organization (and frankly I am more a moderate, but in contrast to others I am well to the left). On many occasions I have been sitting around a table with many other officers discussing issues where I was the only one representing a left leaning or progressive point of view. The people at my level, move on to become the senior leadership that advises the civilian leadership. How diverse do you think the voices at the top are?
Kevin strikes the most key point of all when he notes it is the civilian leadership that sends the military to war. A nation needs a military that wants to fight, when you unleash the dogs of war, you want those dogs to hunt. It is those holding the leash that bear the responsibility.
In regards to bsalyers...
Sir, with respect, it is you that is naive. You note it well when you point out your lack of association with the military. Those who continute to claim that the military is an institution that asks its members to "follow orders without question" are setting up a strawman for their own purposes. In the midsts of the heat of battle, yes, it is important to act rapidly and quickly, with no time for discussion, but that is a fraction of the whole picture. Strategy and planning are an extensive process with numerous questions being asked at every level.
Not every recruit stays a recruit, of that pool, many go on to positions of leadership. If you were in the military you would know that at higher levels, the personality and individual viewpoints becomes a greater part of the picture. This is why diversity is important, so that all voices are included in the organization and filter to the top.
I suggest you are shortsighted. It takes a generation or two of development to change the leadership of an institution. You will note it was the army that integrated before society as a whole, and over time, officers who supported those changes, and were the result of those changes moved to positions of leadership. Or have you never heard of a man called Colin Powell?
You also insult the leadership of the military at all levels, all of whom once upon a time were recruits, when you express an opinion that they are somehow not speaking out for the well being of the soldiers in their commands. They might not do it in a manner you would find more acceptable, such as standing on a street corner with a sign, yelling in a crowd, or posting notes in a video game, but they are working within the system to take care of their troops, and I would note, to great effect.
