Letters to the Editor
-
Swatopluk
Let us raise some funds
-- Swatopluk
I think that is a seriously good idea. No joke.
-
Anonymous - Active duty officer
However, in the context of Webb's legislation, it's time to start talking about mandating a certain amount of inter-deployment time not for the sake of the soldiers mental health nor for their families -- although these would be salutory and important effects of its adoption. The point is that Webb's legislation should be adopted in order to protect the military's ability to safeguard the country.
That's an argument that undercuts the "strong on national defense" tough-guy types, who will have to admit that we must be ready to meet a host of threats, while achieving the desired effect of giving our soldiers and Marines a break.
These aren't separate arguments. They are the same. Presumably, the reason why such breaks are necessary for military readiness is because troops can't endure the strain of fighting this long without them. I didn't cast the argument purely as some humanitarian case -- that it would be nice to give our troops a break - but rather as its being necessary to relieve the strain on the military and its troops.
From my perspective as an active duty officer, it's a hard sell to come into the boss and say "my guys need a break"; however, if I say "they'll be better able to conduct the next mission if . . .", maybe we can get somewhere.
Again, this is just word play. Why would you be able to conduct a better mission with breaks?
You shouldn't focus so much on calling out your ideological enemies when the long term health of the military (and its individual members) is what's really at stake.
The reason the long-term health of the military - and our country - is at stake is precisely because of these individuals. A failure to "call them out" means not only that the current policies continue, but new ones begin as well. I think I'll stick to what I'm doing.
-
Among other things....
You shouldn't focus so much on calling out your ideological enemies when the long term health of the military (and its individual members) is what's really at stake. -- Anonymous
From the the perspective of an active duty officer, this may be true. From the perspective of a citizen, the health of the military is only one of the things at stake, and not the most important one at that. What's really at stake is what kind of country this is to be. If the military is what -- in constitutional terms -- provides for the common defense, there's no doubt that GWB's misadventure in Iraq is an abomination, no matter what the length of deployments, or the shrinking time between them for those who bear the burden of a misguided imperial foreign policy.
Glenn's ideological enemies, as you call them, have to answer for their crimes. The long-term health of the military would be better served if its active duty officers understood that their duty involves more than following the orders of a deranged Commander-in-Chief.
-
Just as Kagan has his "help" mow his lawn, he has his "help" fights his wars.
He would no more ask his own children to fight his wars than he would ask them mow the lawn. That's not their job! That's for the Mexicans! Jeez, Greenwald, what's wrong with you?
To add just the most delicious soupcon of irony to to the dish, Kagan also thinks we're too damn nice to Mexicans. The nerve of them! Sneaking over the border so they can mow his lawn for $5 an hour.
In my opinion, this is why there is not more protest against the war. Just as no one gives a second thought to the weirdness of having to import a class of people from other countries to mow our lawns, most Americans (for all the lip service we pay to supporting the troops) consider the job of fighting and dying in our war to belong to "those people."
-
This is Robert Kagan's reasoning for war
From End of Dreams, Return of History
By Robert Kagan
Today radical Islamists are the last holdout against these powerful forces of globalization and modernization. They seek to carve out a part of the world where they can be left alone, shielded from what they regard as the soul-destroying licentiousness of unchecked liberalism and capitalism. The tragedy for them is that their goal is impossible to achieve. Neither the United States nor the other great powers will turn over control of the Middle East to these fundamentalist forces, if only because the region is of such vital strategic importance to the rest of the world. The outside powers have strong internal allies as well, including the majority of the populations of the Middle East who have been willing and even eager to make peace with modernity. Nor is it conceivable in this modern world that a people can wall themselves off from modernity even if the majority wanted to. Could the great Islamic theocracy that al Qaeda and others hope to erect ever completely block out the sights and sounds of the rest of the world and thereby shield their people from the temptations of modernity? The mullahs have not even succeeded at doing that in Iran. The project is fantastic.
The world is thus faced with the prospect of a protracted struggle in which the goals of the extreme Islamists can never be satisfied because neither the United States nor anyone else has the ability to give them what they want. The West is quite simply not capable of retreating as far as the Islamic extremists require.
If retreat is impossible, perhaps the best course is to advance. Of the many bad options in confronting this immensely dangerous problem, the best may be to hasten the process of modernization in the Islamic world: more modernization, more globalization, faster. This would require greater efforts to support and expand capitalism and the free market in Arab countries, as many have already recommended, as well as efforts to increase public access to the modern world through television and the internet. Nor should it be considered a setback if these modern communication tools are also used to organize radical extremism. That is unavoidable so long as the radical Islamist backlash persists, which it will for some time.
Finally, the liberal world should continue to promote political modernization and liberalization; support human rights, including the rights of women; and use its influence to support repeated elections that may, if nothing else, continually shift power from the few to the many. This, too, will produce setbacks. It will provide a channel for popular resentments to express themselves and for radical Islamism itself to take power. But perhaps this phase is as unavoidable as the present conflict. Perhaps the sooner it is begun, the sooner a new phase can take its place. 21
Throughout all these efforts, whose success is by no means guaranteed and certainly not any time soon, the United States and others will have to persist in fighting what is, in fact, quite accurately called “the war on terrorism.” Now and probably for the coming decades, organized terrorist groups will seek to strike at the United States, and at modernity itself, when and where they can. This war will not and cannot be the totality of America ’s worldwide strategy. It can be only a piece of it. But given the high stakes, it must be prosecuted ruthlessly, effectively, and for as long as the threat persists. This will sometimes require military interventions when, as in Afghanistan, states either cannot or will not deny the terrorists a base. That aspect of the “war on terror” is certainly not going away. One need only contemplate the American popular response should a terrorist group explode a nuclear weapon on American soil. No president of any party or ideological coloration will be able to resist the demands of the American people for retaliation and revenge, and not only against the terrorists but against any nation that aided or harbored them. Nor, one suspects, will the American people disapprove when a president takes preemptive action to forestall such a possibility — assuming the action is not bungled.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/8552512.html
The only response I could think of to this was "Stanley, this is a another fine mess you've gotten us into"