Stephen: > My first reaction on reading this piece was "Whoa! Reality > check!" and was mightily struck to find out in how many > countries the US has on-the-ground military operatives doing > their thing (often in very small numbers) and, as Kaplan > sees it, doing so quite effectively.
One wonders if, given the American's dubious economic prospects, they can keep it up. One is reminded of a passage in Paul Kennedy's introductory summary to "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers": "It sounds crudely mercantilistic to express it this way, but wealth is usually needed to underpin military power, and military power is usually needed to acquire and protect wealth. If, however, too large a proportion of the state's resources is diverted from wealth creation and allocated instead to military purposes, then that is likely to lead to a weakening of national power over the longer term. In the same way, if a state overextends itself strategically - by, say, the conquest of extensive territories or the waging of costly wars - it runs the risk that the potential benefits from external expansion may be outweighed by the great expense of it all - a dilemma which becomes acute if the nation concerned has entered a period of relative economic decline." Ed Weick > ED brought to our attention ---> > > <<<<<The current issue of Atlantic [which] contains an > article by Robert Kaplan entitled "Supremacy by Stealth"... > It sets out ten rules that America, as the new Rome, should > use to govern the world and make it safe for freedom and > democracy, American style.<<<<<<<<<< > > My first reaction on reading this piece was "Whoa! Reality > check!" and was mightily struck to find out in how many > countries the US has on-the-ground military operatives doing > their thing (often in very small numbers) and, as Kaplan > sees it, doing so quite effectively. > > As you note, he portrays these operatives as highly talented > and well-educated folks ... more like James Bonds than GI > Joes (and I also wondered if there was a place for Jane > Bonds in this picture of the New American Century). > > RAY made a good point when he noted ---> > > >>>>>>>>>that the military is the only truly equal opportunity employer in the nation... the most democratic institution in America ... performance oriented and not built upon the European aristocratic model. Prejudice against the military is unseemly and we should not carry that prejudice over into creating the kind of anger carried by the police. We pay the military poorly but train them well and demand much from them. They, more than any other Americans, can truly speak to the values of equality and equal opportunity.<<<<<<<<<<< > > I think Ray is right about this. And not just as applies to > multi-lingual graduates of poli sci departments & army war > colleges. > > Perhaps you recall back when he was Sec'y of DEEEEfence (in > the LBJ admin) Robert McNamara proposed that the Pentagon > should play a large role in *civilian* job training. This > was greeted with hoots of derision by everybody in my > liberal-minded crowd, and I well remember being drawn up > short when McNamara made just Ray's point, assuring us > smugly liberal types that the surest route out of the ghetto > and poverty into highly skilled well-paid work was via the > US Army. A very high proportion of African-Americans with > steady jobs in heavy construction, for example, had gone > from the ghetto into the army where they learned how to > operate bulldozers, cranes, graders, and every other sort of > heavy equipment. I imagine much the same is true also these > days in electronics & computer stuff. (FWers! Are there any > reliable data on this phenomenon??) > > So when KAREN asks ----> > > >>>>>>>>Have we undermined public education so much or lost all confidence in it that we only trust the military to train our leaders?<<<<<<<<< > > I'm reminded to underscore the point about democratic > ACCESSIBILITY that Ray made. Not only is the military an > equal-opportunity operation, it is an educational > institution with scholarships for all: you get PAID to be > trained up. > > Somebody mentioned Colin Powell as an example of the > military as an agent of social mobility. It is relevant to > note that although Powell grew up as a shopkeeper's son in > the Bronx, he did go to tuition-free City College in the > 1950s and was thereby already on a trajectory that could > have landed him a professorship somewhere. [A friend of mine > (from the same neighborhood in the Bronx, not far from > Yankee Stadium) was a classmate of Powell at CCNY and he > told me a little-known fact, that Powell is a fluent speaker > of Yiddish, learned, of course, in the shop. The people who > delivered ice to my friend's apartment building were blacks, > also conducting their business in Yiddish. I'll bet it's > something to behold when Powell starts up a conversation > with some of his colleagues in the Israeli diplomatic > corps.] > > best wishes from summery Vancouver, > where I am only about a week behind in my FW mail ... > > Stephen Straker > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Vancouver, B.C. > [Outgoing mail scanned by Norton AntiVirus] > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
