Letters to the Editor
-
Can't say as I entirely agree with you.
I think the reason why the military is respected is because it has heretofore been non-political. We can trust them because they aren't a tool of the ruling elite (as is the case in, for example, Pakistan). When the civilian leadership say go, they say Yes, Sir! That's exactly what I expect them to do. (Full disclosure: USAF 1969-1975).
The imperialist warmongers in Washington? That's a different matter.
-
Response to Mr. Astore
What I was trying to do was to move the debate beyond the typical critique of the military as an imperial tool of corporate America.
You failed. You didn't define new terms for the debate or reframe it at all. You didn't lay out a new more effective line of argumentation. In fact you didn't critique the military at all, other than with some brief comments in the opening paragraph. From reading the piece it's not clear that you even see any reason to critique it.
If you want to move the debate to place you prefer, instead of lecturing imaginary people on what they are doing wrong lead by example and make a good set of arguments yourself.
You've identified what some bad arguments look like. Ok. So what do good arguments look like?
-
Yet another "wussy" peacenik that has never been to war.....
It is VERY obvious that this so-called author has never been in the military.
It is easy to be a "bomb thrower from the back row" when you dont see the big picture.
It is easy to be "anti-war" and peace oriented without having to do this wonderful country a minimal service of serving in the Military.
I think we lost a lot when the draft was abolished. Every citizen needs to serve this country in some capacity for a few years just to realize how lucky they really are.
So go ahead and spread your poison. At least some of us know the truth.
-
bloomsbury
All exactly true. Let's look at the highlights:
. . . the military in America is a product and it's been sold very cleverly and at great expense to most Americans . . . America has corporatized war and in order to make a profit they need to have wars going on all the time. And they do. The military is a sacred cow which cannot be criticised in movies, in ads, in songs and certainly not by politicians. Any organization that cannot be criticised will go on making the same mistakes and it will be a law unto itself. It is a typical far right organization: harsh inflexible rules within but if anyone from 'outside' attacks the organization itself, it closes ranks and deals with the 'problem'whatever it may be by its own strange rules - not those of the democracy that surrounds it.
Most people would be shocked to find out how far it's gone.
The Powers That Be have no use for the US except as a corpse to bleed dry of its wealth and as a staging ground for profiteering on wars. The only reason society at large hasn't been militarized yet is because it can still be bled by corporations, but it may only be a matter of time.
US militarism can be expected to cost $2 trillion this year, based on projections. The US doesn't spend as much on war as the rest of the world combined - it spends double and possibly triple.
Two-Thirds On Defense
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2005/06/10/twothirds_on_defense.php
The sheer waste is spectacular beyond the comprehension of most people.
"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml
That was five years ago. The situation has deteriorated since then.
You may find it difficult to find anybody who really believes the US is a "peace-loving nation", in or out of the US, because it's not. Even corporate insiders like Greenspan are prepared to openly admit that Iraq, for example, was conquered for its oil. This puts modern US miltarism in the category of armed robbery, and nothing less.
Mr. Astore wants us to believe that most citizens love the military, but the evidence suggests this isn't necessarily true of the general population. The "faith" and "trust" some Americans have in the military is a radically conservative one, unquestioning and authoritarian, and therefore unlikely to be shared by a majority of Americans to the degree posited in Astore's article. Even fewer would share it if militarism were not conscientiously glorified and promoted in the news and entertainment media.
Further, Americans will become more acutely aware of the enormous costs of militarism as the economy grinds down. For the present citizens are stuck with paying out thousands every year for corporatist militarism, not really knowing how much it costs them personally and not knowing how little they're getting for it in the way of actual "national security": for all those trillions spent, our much-vaunted security establishment was useless in preventing the 9/11 attacks.
See "War is a Racket" by Gen. Smedley Butler, if you haven't seen it already.
-
kenneco
It is easy to be "anti-war" and peace oriented without having to do this wonderful country a minimal service of serving in the Military.
It is, however, possible to be a gung-ho war profiteer while having done everything possible to avoid military service.
Which describes most officials in the Bush administration, particularly Cheney. You might like to talk to them ol' chickenhawks about that.
-
Jeffrey P. Harrison
I think the reason why the military is respected is because it has heretofore been non-political.
It's largely a holdover from WWII, when the military did a splendid job against Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo. That positivism has declined only somewhat in the last fifty years, even though it's been mostly a racket before and since then, something that can be glossed over for most people if you spend enough on PR.
-
Does the author support women in the military, or not?
Does the author support women in the military, or not? He argues that the military is more representative than many elitist institutions, and cites his a black female Colonel as an example.
He then goes on to say that people join the military as a right of masculine passage. The military, thus, must only be for men. It is their identity defining institution in this 'over feminised' America. So, clearly, there is NO room for women in such a place. After all, if women joined the military, it would no longer be a place of masculine identity. Much like going to university or taking up an office job once were male pursuits that defined one's masculinity, once they've been overrun by women, apparently men are no longer able to take their identity from them.
I was particularly struck by the following quote:
"There could be many opportunities for our young men to assert their masculinity in non-military and non-violent settings -- fixing our nation's roads and bridges, rebuilding our inner cities, rescuing places torn apart by disaster, natural or otherwise, like New Orleans; and from these, too, funded educational openings and future career possibilities could arise."
The author is describing a host of typical male "blue-collar" jobs (miner, firemen, policemen, electrician, plumber, builder). Many of these occupations are inaccessible to women, because of their "keep out" mentality.
The author seems to be in favour of these industries, as well as the US military, staying almost exclusively male in order for men to have the "opportunity to assert their masculinity".
Personally I disagree. I think that women are equal, and should have equal access and support in pursuing these stereotypically male careers.
The author uses physical changes in women's bodies to typify their femineity (menstruation, pregnancy, etc). Last time I checked, men go through puberty and the excitement of becoming a parent as well.
There is more to masculinity than being a good soldier or fireman. The sooner people realise that, the better.