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
will
either not have the courage to take part -- or they'll turn
against
their officers as
they did in Vietnam.
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
