Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Does society venerate the military too much?

Bush Military

  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 02 May 2003 - 05:52 AM

Earlier this evening, President Bush addressed the nation, and the world, from the decks of the USS Abraham Lincoln. His speech was pretty much entirely a "thank you" to the troops who fought, bled and died in Iraq, coupled with statements of intent for what's to come, and a reminder of what they are fighting for.

This is not the first time the President has addressed the nation --and the world-- from a military venue. He has made speeches on and before tanks, or with an F-16 in the background, ostensibly to draw attention to the armed forces' technology and sacrifice alike, but more importantly, it seems, to play on the image of himself as Commander-in-Chief.

While I won't (and don't want anyone else to) go into "Bush pays too much attention to foreign policy" or whatever, I do want to ask the question in the thread title: do we venerate the military a bit too much?

I mean, I type this surrounded by first-person shooter games, real-time strategy games, and flight simulator games based on military or science-fiction military settings-- basically, fighting a war. I have seen many a war movie, watched more than one war on CNN or (usually) the BBC, have researched past wars (I am, after all, a military historian by education) and have toyed with the notion of enlisting for officer training in the Canadian armed forces more than once.

And I know that on many levels, I'm not the only one here who probably meets some of that criteria. Many here have military knowledge (most notably Aegis and jon, but also many others) which requires a specialization of reading that even I can't claim to have done. Still others enjoy a good war play or movie --I've heard Henry V bantered around from time to time, among others. And a lot of us can claim being fans of a movie or TV series devoted entirely to one form or war or another. Notable examples include the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the Matrix trilogy, the X-Men trilogy, the Star Wars trilogies, various (but not all) Star Trek films, DS9, B5, and others not so prevalent in my memory ----all of which, on one level or another, are about two or more great powers grappling with each other in mass combat on a field of battle somewhere.

In fact, the most notable example --and one against which I have juxtaposed my thinking on this line repeatedly-- in science fiction of a culture that lionizes combat and the warrior in a similar manner, at least to my eyes, would be the Klingon Empire. Recent eps of Enterprise have shown that over the centuries, the Klingon Empire was not always about "honour" and combat and death & glory. Yet their culture evolved to emphasize personal honour not so much in the quotidian matters, but in battle. The most prominent example I can think of to make my case is Sto-Vo-Kor, the Klingon 'heaven', where warriors who have fallen in glorious battle (no matter if they win or lose) go to dwell in paradise. Apparently the blood wine flows like a river. I don't know. I've never been.

All I can really say is that, to me, there is a sort of militaryish regimentation of society ---and a strong emphasis on the military's place within that society, as though subjecting and submitting yourself to a chain of command is the greatest thing any man or woman can choose to do--- which I find most unsettling. And the President's words this evening, despite my long-standing support for "regime change" everywhere, struck the wrong chord with me.

And I figured I'd start a thread and ask the question.

Replies, comments, all that good stuff, is absolutely welcome. Just don't call me sir. ;)

Posted Image

Edited by Certifiably Cait, 26 August 2012 - 03:28 PM.

“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#2 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 02 May 2003 - 05:59 AM

No.

Quite the opposite.

A VERY simple slogan nailed it: "If it wasn't the home of the brave, it wouldn't be the home of the free."

If anything, we need to give more honour, more valour, and- most of all-- better pay and benefits to our heroes. Without our military, I sincerely doubt we'd have the free society to even discuss the issue.

We owe our military, past and present. Big time.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#3 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 02 May 2003 - 06:03 AM

It is possible to regard the military in too-high esteem. Some people here and now do, and it can lead to problems in places and times with the wrong circumstances for that esteem to play off of. But there are also plenty of people who despize the military too much. We need to have the former around to balance out the latter; overall, I have no complaint with the present general balance in society on this one.

#4 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 02 May 2003 - 06:27 AM

There are a lot of things wrong with our (North American) culture, but over-veneration of the military isn't one of them. The truth, imo, is that we love the things the military does for us, but we generally ignore the people who do them. That's particularly true in Canada (where we've almost lost our capacity for self defense after decades of neglect), but it's also true of the United States (where many military families are forced to live off government assistance, and veteran's benefits are always being reduced).

The games and toys and war movies and TV shows are outlets for aggression and emotions that our society generally considers "negative" - and (imo) they say more about our fears than our desires. Through play and entertainment, we take on all comers and emerge triumphant. That's part of human nature, and there's probably an analogue for it in all human societies.

That said however, there is a historical precedent for the "militarization" of entire cultures. Countries like 1930s Germany and Japan seemed to be hypnotized by martial values. And when they reorganized themselves along fascist chain-of-command lines, it seemed only natural to use their newfound power by attacking other, weaker nations. But that kind of dry rot needs special conditions to grow, and (again imo) liberal democracies are very bad incubators for fascism. There's just too much freedom to question and dissent here for everyone to march to the same tune.

But if we become too complacent, anything might happen. So you asked a very good question, Hawk. :)
Per aspera ad astra

#5 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 02 May 2003 - 06:28 AM

I actually stand on the opposite side of the coin here Hawk.  First sure society does have their little media hang-ups when it comes to “violence”.  If anything though in regards to the military it is probably the most under appreciated establishment out there.  If the military were as highly regarded as you claimed then they would actually make enough of a paycheck to live off.  Instead we have military families across the board pinching pennies because a family member was called up to active duty and deployed.  I don’t call that the mark of something that is highly regarded or deeply appreciated.  Sure the mass of people flock to appreciating the military when it has a major victory like now but then they forget it once things return to normal.  

If anything in this country most people don’t even have a basic understanding of why the military operates in the manner it does.  There is even less knowledge in terms of tactics or equipment.  If the military was venerated by society then they might actually have the funding and parts to maintain the equipment they all ready have.  Maybe even get some new things like the F/A-22 Raptor or V-22 Osprey or D-21 rather than having to fight every step of the way in Congress to get them.

The public if anything needs some serious educating when it comes to the military and I’m not talking CNN style.  At least a basic level military history class for all high school students should be a requirement.  At least then the citizenry would be aware of the capabilities, consequences, and options of employing the military in a particular situation. Rather than thinking of it as a big police force…

Edited by CJ AEGIS, 02 May 2003 - 06:33 AM.

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#6 Laoise

Laoise

    I am bounce around so well

  • Islander
  • 714 posts

Posted 02 May 2003 - 06:52 AM

Yes, I think we do venerate the military too much.  No career that involves killing should be venerated.  It makes me sick that death and the possibility for death stirs good and patriotic feelings within people.

That said, because people aren't very peaceful, the military is necessary.  The people who fight and die and kill should be respected - but respected in the same way as doctors and law enforcement officers and people who dispose of hazardous wastes and the like, who also ensure that we can live the lifestyles we're accustomed to.  It's a necessary job, and it deserves some respect and the tools needed to complete the job.

But we don't need to be glorifying the military the way we do.  They took a job and they do the job.  So do millions of other people, outside of the military, each and every day.  What's so wonderful about killing people?  (I wasn't really asking, please don't try to answer me, you'll probably only piss me off.  Unless you answer "nothing" ;))
Being Liberal means never having to say you're Tory.

#7 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,190 posts

Posted 02 May 2003 - 06:53 AM

Sort of skimmed over, so don't mind me ;) :) Besides wars and battles being "popular" because of violence and or sensationalism and letting out emotions like frustration, etc, I think people enjoy movies with great struggle because most people have lots of personal struggles in their own life - mini battles if you will - while not of the physical sort, certainly do take their toll over time. People sometimes just like to see the good guy(s) win, at others just to see bad things happen to good people just like it does to them. I think thats part of how people relate andor like, though the situations are often very different, the emotions sparked by them are very similar.

*wanders off wondering where that came to her from*

Edited by Ro-Astarte, 02 May 2003 - 08:13 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#8 QuiGon John

QuiGon John

    Gone

  • Islander
  • 4,158 posts

Posted 02 May 2003 - 07:43 AM

Well, I could go both ways on that...

On the one hand, yes, I do think it's possible to venerate the military too much, and I think our culture occasionally does.  The knee-jerk patriotism that the military encourages and inspires occasionally makes me nervous.

On the other hand, it's good policy not to denigrate the career choices or the accomplishments of people braver and more dedicated than one's self.  That being the case, I have to come down on the side of respecting their sacrifices for our country.

#9 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 02 May 2003 - 07:56 AM

Not all jobs are equal, some require significantly more risk than others, fire fighters, oil rig workers, sailors, law enforcement and the military all carry with them the intrinsic  danger of loosing your life as a direct result of the job. It isn't just a job like any other, garbage men, accountants, checkout clerks, most doctors, lawyers, or teachers aren't asked as part and parcel of doing thier job to risk death. This is what is asked of the military person. From the dawn of what we can recognize as humans there have been those trained to protect whatever group they are affiliated with, wether from animals or other humans and I think they deserve a certain level of respect for being willing to takeon such a responsibility. The world is flawed and maybe someday the lion will lay down with the lamb and we won't practice war no more and the militaries of the world will have the luxery of becoming a police force but until then the ultimate threat of force needs to be an option.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#10 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 02 May 2003 - 08:02 AM

CJ AEGIS:

Quote

If the military were as highly regarded as you claimed then they would actually make enough of a paycheck to live off.  Instead we have military families across the board pinching pennies because a family member was called up to active duty and deployed.
Yes, it's shameful that we don't pay our enlisted military personnel enough to feed their families. Maybe Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress will remember how grateful they say they are while hashing out next year's budget. Unfortunately, Bush would rather slash the dividend tax (which would probably harm the economy more than help it) than do right by the men and women he put at risk.

Quote

If the military was venerated by society then they might actually have the funding and parts to maintain the equipment they all ready have.  Maybe even get some new things like the F/A-22 Raptor or V-22 Osprey or D-21 rather than having to fight every step of the way in Congress to get them.
The U.S.'s military spending dwarfs that of any other country. If the U.S. military pulled out of Japan, Germany, and other countries where it's no longer needed, it would free up a substantial amount of money to spend on equipment.

Quote

At least a basic level military history class for all high school students should be a requirement.  At least then the citizenry would be aware of the capabilities, consequences, and options of employing the military in a particular situation.
The U.S. military or National Guard would have to provide the instructors or at the very least train and advise them.

IIRC, ROTC-style programs have improved discipline and academic performance in troubled school districts.

Edited by QuantumFlux, 02 May 2003 - 08:10 AM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#11 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 02 May 2003 - 09:01 AM

Quote

QuantumFlux: Maybe Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress will remember how grateful they say they are while hashing out next year's budget. Unfortunately, Bush would rather slash the dividend tax (which would probably harm the economy more than help it) than do right by the men and women he put at risk.


It was a Democrat Clinton who gutted the military to all new lows during the 1990s.  To a degree where our carriers are undermanned with reduced airwings and he had the potential replacements for them the A-6s taken from storage and turned into coral reefs.  Then you have the shortages of parts, personnel, and having to turn aircraft into hangar queens to keep another flying because you lack the basic parts needed for repairs.  How about running the stock of T-Hawks and other ordnance down to critically low levels.  I doubt we could have conducted this war against Iraq earlier simply because we it took times for the manufacturing lines to get up to speed to replenish the depleted stocks.   If you really want to get into all the ways that the Clinton Administration and Democrats nearly irreparably damaged the military then we can.

The Bush administration as of October had sought more than $150 billion in new military spending.  The total military budget for FY01 was $329.0 billion as of February the projected military budget for FY04 was nearing 400 billion.  Or to be exact the figure was $379.9 and a $15.3 billion dollar increase over FY03.  Predictions for FY09 place spending at $502.7 billion.  Funds are set aide for military pay increases that vary from 2.0 percent up to 6.25 percent with these increases targeted by rank and years of service. It reduces the out-of-pocket housing costs from 7.5 percent to 3.5 percent for personnel who live in private housing and the plan is to drop to zero in FY05.  It provides $15.3 billion for the Defense Health Program, which is $0.5 billion above FY03.  It sets aside funds for the SSGN conversions,  the CVN-21, DD(X), and CG(X) programs for the Navy.  You have funds for Army to acquire more Strykers and develop the Comanche further and the Air Force to gain addition F/A-22 Raptors along with the acquiring of more V-22 Ospreys.

The Republican Administration and Congress are indeed taking the right steps toward correcting the immense problems that developed with the military during the 1990s.  These are problems that arose when Clinton rather than Bush was in power.

Quote

QuantumFlux: The U.S.'s military spending dwarfs that of any other country. If the U.S. military pulled out of Japan, Germany, and other countries where it's no longer needed, it would free up a substantial amount of money to spend on equipment.

The commitments, obligations, and responsibilities of the US military dwarf those of many other countries combined many times over.  Just in the area of naval power; without the US Navy making the worldwide commitment it does the oceans of the world would be a whole lot more dangerous.  The US Navy is playing the role that the Royal Navy used to fulfill as the insurer of the freedom to navigate the seas.  This is one key role among others that is essential to the economy of the world.   In addition the equipment that is being used to carry out these roles is getting old and in need of replacement.  Secondly those overseas bases are essential to supplying and deploying troops into a particular theater.  Without those bases the effort to deploy forces to Iraq would have taken far longer as all the heavy units had to be brought out of the CONUS.

Edited by CJ AEGIS, 02 May 2003 - 09:02 AM.

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#12 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 02 May 2003 - 09:44 AM

Would I say that we venerate the military too much?  I'd say, no.  If asked if we venerate violence at arm's length too much, I might have to say, yes.

Having respect or supporting a military force is not the same thing as supporting people who kill for a living.  Indeed today, for the most part, many military forces occupy roles that have more to do with protecting people than killing people.  Military forces also carry out humanitarian and civil engineering tasks as well.  Certainly, this is not a force tasked with conquest as it's goal.  

Let's be clear here.  The modern military is made up of people who are not like bloodthirsty warriors of the past.  Your position in American society is not advanced very much by military service.  Yes, you get skills and can get aid and assistance for education, but if you simply skipped the military part and went off to college as soon as possible, you'd make more money faster in the private sector sooner.  If your position is not advanced in society by killing, then there's really no reason to put your life on the line in a war.  Military people are the least likely to actually want a war because they know that they will be taking the bullets if there is one and they won't get extra women/goods/lands for the fighting.  They'll just get a medal perhaps and the same (small) income as before, if they get out alive and mostly intact.  

Violence-at-a-distance, however, is a problem that is distinct from glorification of a military.  This is where we play games or watch movies that have violence (often unnecessary) that is turned into an artform which is rendered to a mere spectacle, without the price that any real warrior would have to face in a similar situation.  Yes, we see people in military uniforms as part of this, but we also see terrorists, gangsters and secret agents in these roles as well.  It's violence without the viewer having to take responsibility, and that is not the same as admiring people who make real sacrifices to protect their people from real dangers.  Indeed, the military people are victims of this as much as anyone else because those who are against this violence without responsibility often redirect at the military because the media and games often put violent characters in uniforms.  Those who accuse the military of this attitude, however, have actually allowed themselves to be just as manipluated by the entertainment machine as everyone else.  They only see the bullets and toys featured in such things and fail to see the other aspects of service that a real soldier is called upon to carry out.  Soldiers are not "Rambo" because Rambo is just a gross distortion of what a real soldier does.  Interestingly, if one watches the original First Blood, Rambo is actually the result of a soldier who has been beaten down precisely because of disrespect for soldiers.  The implication is that those who disdain the military for being Rambos are part of what makes soldiers into such things to begin with.  It's an implication that I agree with.  Indeed, the more you revile people like the police or soldiers for being corrupt, the more likely they are to become corrupt because they have nowhere lower to go and so eventually, only the corrupt and the incompetent can be lured into such services.  And we do see that today with many police forces.  Luckily it hasn't happened yet with the military.

Now, I'm not for the glorification of any military force, because that is fascist, but the military should have respect, and it should get more of that than it gets these days.  Viewing military service as honorable and giving them the tools to do their job without putting themselves in danger from the enemy or ill-maintained equipment is where we need to be.

Edited by Uncle Sid, 02 May 2003 - 09:53 AM.

I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#13 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 02 May 2003 - 12:21 PM

CJ AEGIS, I don’t know when poverty became rampant among the US military’s enlisted personnel, but I’m fairly sure it was before Clinton. In any case, Clinton’s failure to rectify poverty among military families doesn't make it any more acceptable for Bush to remain mute about the problem even as he actively praises the troops and presses Congress to slash the taxes paid by the affluent. Currently, Congress is controlled by Bush's party, and not supporting the troops is politically untenable. Even so, I've yet to hear Bush ask Congress to allocate enough money so that all US military personnel are paid at least enough to support a family of four or five.

Quote

Funds are set aide for military pay increases that vary from 2.0 percent up to 6.25 percent with these increases targeted by rank and years of service. It reduces the out-of-pocket housing costs from 7.5 percent to 3.5 percent for personnel who live in private housing and the plan is to drop to zero in FY05. It provides $15.3 billion for the Defense Health Program, which is $0.5 billion above FY03.
A pittance. Way too many soldiers will still have to work two jobs and rely on food programs to support their families.

Regarding the commitments of the US military, please explain why we need 71,000 troops in Germany and 40,000 in Japan. Each of these countries is quite capable of defending itself. Additionally, Germany doesn't want our troops there. Why not close superfluous bases and use the savings on military equipment?

Edited to rework parts which did a poor job expressing my view.
Edited again because I don't know if South Korea, even with the help of our 37,000 troops stationed there, could repel an invasion by North Korea.

Edited by QuantumFlux, 02 May 2003 - 09:40 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#14 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,140 posts

Posted 02 May 2003 - 03:21 PM

Quote

better pay and benefits to our heroes.

I'd be for that.



Quote

It was a Democrat Clinton who gutted the military to all new lows during the 1990s. To a degree where our carriers are undermanned with reduced airwings and he had the potential replacements for them the A-6s taken from storage and turned into coral reefs. Then you have the shortages of parts, personnel, and having to turn aircraft into hangar queens to keep another flying because you lack the basic parts needed for repairs.


The Repulicians don't take care of the post war soldiers. The build more bombs, and more planes, not always a bad thing.  That kind of thinking brought us the B-2 and F-117 qand soon to be F-22. But the soldier plight has remained the same over the years.
Can't Touch This!!

#15 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 02 May 2003 - 05:40 PM

I completely agree that we need to pay our soldiers more.

IIRC, during the cold war, our military spending was 5% of our GNP. Now, it's 2.5%. Perhaps we could take wasted money (did you hear we're spending $600,00 to remodel a UN ambassador's kitchen?) and invest in better care for soldiers (past, present, future), R&D, training, equipment, etc.

The US military is the most powerful force in the world. I, for one, would like the US government to keep it that way....
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#16 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 02 May 2003 - 05:52 PM

My feeling is that American society (and both parties) are very good at paying lip service to venerating the military and using soldiers, sailors and marines as props.  That spectacle on the aircraft carrier yesterday was about as stage-managed as that Cher video, only without the revealing costumes.

Meanwhile, we've got noncommissioned officers with families who qualify for food stamps in some states, and Congress voted to cut benefits for disabled veterans in the middle of the war while no one was looking, and of course our allegedly liberal media didn't think it was a story.  (actually, I'd call that more of a class issue than anything else-- elite media people mostly aren't interested in reporting on people from lower social classes than themselves unless they're behaving badly or dooing something photogenic)

If you think America venerates the military too much, go visit a VA hospital sometime.  Personally, I'd like to see politicans use the military less as backdrop in their own Jerry Bruckheimer spectacles and do more help service members lead middle class lives and treat the ones who pay the price with dignity.

Zack
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#17 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,140 posts

Posted 02 May 2003 - 09:43 PM

Quote

If you think America venerates the military too much, go visit a VA hospital sometime.


Best point in the thread! If you've never seen the inside of a VA hospital, go see one, or better yet, take a vet for an appointment.

We begged Dad to go to another hospital, which he evenually did, I think that move may have bought him a few more months.
Can't Touch This!!

#18 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 03 May 2003 - 04:40 PM

Quote

QuantumFlux: I don’t know when poverty became rampant among the US military’s enlisted personnel, but I’m fairly sure it was before Clinton.

Actually yes you could trace it back to another Democrat Carter to find the low point of the situation.  Reagan started to place some corrections in place and then these were totally compromised by Clinton again.  I’ll agree that the Republicans don’t do nearly enough to take care of the troops but the other option is the Democrats who do even less.  The alternative is in fact downright dangerous for US soldiers.  To the degree that Clinton directly endangered the lives of active duty US serviceperson by so drastically stripping the US military through under funding.  Clinton saw the military as little more than a political tool to blow up aspirin factories to take pressure of his back.

Quote

QuantumFlux: Regarding the commitments of the US military, please explain why we need 71,000 troops in Germany and 40,000 in Japan.

Forward deployed forces are a critical component of US defense policy.  All you have to do is ask if it is easier and quicker to deploy troops from Japan or Germany to some hotspot in Asia, Europe, or the Middle East or all the way from over yonder in the CONUS.  It takes far longer for transports and aircraft from the US to reach a spot then rapid reaction forces deployed from these forward bases.  In that wasted time US forces could be too late to make a critical difference in a campaign.  

Quote

QuantumFlux: Additionally, Germany doesn't want our troops there.

You know I’m all for pulling our bases out of Germany and moving them to a friendlier country in Eastern Europe.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#19 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 03 May 2003 - 07:04 PM

"It is good that war is so terrible, otherwise we'd grow to like it too much."

----Robert E. Lee

There is something glamous about warfare, and thet millitary in general. But, when you're fighting a war, it's still very ugly business.

It's a good thing to honor the millitary, but while what the millitary does shouldn't trivalized, it also shouldn't be glamourized. ;)
The longest-running science fiction series: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans... Cybermen! They're still in the nursery compared to us. Fifty years of absolute fandom. That's what it takes to be really critical.

"Don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Bush, Military

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users