Let me add
one more thought about risk assessment: Where Bush
may be risking great domestic dissent is in the unexpectedly large deployment
of weekend warriors, those in the Reserves and National Guard, whose civilian
families do not have the vast, long established active military support
networks, whose paychecks are smaller and their absence from work and
neighborhood more noticeable to the average American. All of us
probably know a few men and women in uniform, and most of them are inspiring
and dedicated individuals who have willingly or belatedly become real soldiers
in the nation’s employ. They made
their choice. But without further shocking
terrorism attacks at home or nightly bombing a la London in WW2, the sight of
Reserves taking tearful leave of their families has awakened even the sleepiest
of patriots. Bush needs
clear irrefutable evidence of an imminent threat that all Americans can taste,
feel and smell. Karen Keith, as long as US soldiers believe that they are
protecting the homeland, kith and kin, there is no question of courage. Ray is right to point out the difference the
volunteer army makes here, that most are True Believers. There will always be notable
exceptions, like the morons who join so they can kill somebody, anybody, and
those who are there simply for the GI Bill. However, the preponderance of men and women in uniform today
are gung ho, a military fraternity of like minds, highly trained and loyal. However, calculating the huge collateral damage in
urban guerrilla warfare should be the right reason for the generals and anyone
else to have second thoughts about a prolonged military exercise. To not have cold feet on that issue
would be foolish and excessively poor leadership. To proceed with that risk assessment one must have a clear,
irrefutable imminent threat. So if the CIA and the Pentagon are continuing their
disagreement, it shows a healthy checks and balances, not lack of courage. If the people are convinced, even if the evidence is
manufactured or exaggerated, if people are convinced of the danger and of the
certainty of the mission, then doubters should remember what the Japanese
learned from awakening the sleeping tiger. God help us if the same occurs now with all our new toys and
skills, our situational ethics and the “ends justifies the means’ foreign
policy. But for the life of me I don’t see how Bush is going
to conduct a proxy war to remove Hussein should the risk managers overcome the
chickenhawks. Would it really be
possible for there to be a Prime Time Sweeps Week war for television
consumption and not face the aftermath of incriminating evidence spread by the
internet and independent satellites?
I would think that an American public, especially the
baby boomers and older vets, much less an already skeptical European one,
having had devastating nationalistic wars in their neighborhoods, would be
suspicious of a Grenada-style invasion to pump up morale and flex our military
muscles. Americans are weary from
economic loss and anxiety, still in shock from 9/11 and alarmed about further
terrorism, more suspicious after corporate scandals, increasingly jealous of
the vigor in the military-industrial-technology complex, while facing a dreary
private and public work life as consumers in the cogs of the wheel of free
market capitalism. If the White House imagines that they can spin that, they certainly believe they
have been blessed and ordained by God on this mission. Let’s be clear about that. They do believe that. Just the same, my instincts tell me that many, many
Americans are disillusioned with society and government as they know it, and
that if a clear and present danger is presented, they will enthusiastically
rally to participate in a cause that restores meaning in their lives, that
reduces materialistic consumerism to its proper juvenile behavior, that gives
vigor to the wounded spirit of
America and restores honor to tarnished values. The dead and wounded will be received as martyrs for a just
cause if and when the White House
taps into a common sense of purpose and shared sacrifice, just as with any
other nation and its patriots.
There are too many who
yearn for past glory, who despise the reality and complexity of the real
world. It will be a clash of
cultures, alright, and not necessarily overseas. - Karen Keith
said: If
Saddam carries out his policy of placing his Republican Guards in the
large cities and fighting street-to-street, and house-to-house, then American
soldiers You are
making a big mistake Keith based upon what has been said about the
past. There are two big, I would say huge differences between the
past as in "Fragging" or using granades on your own abusive officers
and the incident with the 3Rd Infantry in DC. The Old
Guard was a showcase unit made up of enlisted men who were from the highest
educational status in the Army. It was considered cushey duty and
was meant to do a lot of parades for the Washington Area.
There was a movie about them years ago which painted it differently but
this is the scuttlebutt and we were on the same Post as they
were. Ivy League folks wouldn't shoot other students like the
Ohio National Guard did. Second,
there is no longer any Draft. Those folks were drafted into
going somewhere they didn't buy into. After that
fiasco, the Republicans asked and got an all volunteer professional Armed
Services. These folks are tough, mean, well-equipped
and clannish. I have no doubt they would fire on their
own if ordered and absolutely no doubt they would do what they were ordered to
do. The only hope is the upper ranks which might disagree but
that has always been the case as with the WW II Generals who were independant
as well. That is why some of them were fired after the
war. But I don't think any of this has to do with
refusing to fight. In fact I think the opposite is
likely. That they will be too aggressive and looking for a
fight. REH |
- [Futurework] Playing with fire Keith Hudson
- Re: [Futurework] Playing with fire Ray Evans Harrell
- RE: [Futurework] Playing with fire Karen Watters Cole
- Re: [Futurework] Playing with fire Karen Watters Cole
- Re: [Futurework] Playing with fire Ray Evans Harrell
- RE: [Futurework] Playing with fire Keith Hudson
- RE: [Futurework] Playing with fire Karen Watters Cole
- RE: [Futurework] Playing with fire Brian McAndrews
- RE: [Futurework] Playing with fire Karen Watters Cole
- RE: [Futurework] Playing with fire Cordell . Arthur