Memorial Day
Memorial Day is for most Americans a long weekend in which, but for the occasional story on World War II and the liberation of France, there is little thought of what it is we ought be memorializing or why.
For me, it has become a somber, annual reminder of friends and familiars lost too young--of others still recovering from wounds that will serve as a reminder of wars which they are not afforded the luxury to forget. I think of Lenny Cowherd, who wrote his West Point history thesis on the Muslim Brotherhood, the first contemporary I knew well to die in Iraq--the first one who's death could not be undone by resetting MILES gear. Lenny was extended due to our inability to anticipate the Shiite uprising in Najaf. He left behind a young bride to whom he had been married less than a year.
I remember Andy Stern, a Marine forced to endure Army training who really believed that an Abrams could swim because the US Marine Corps told him it was so.
I think of another who sits today in a hospital with the question unanswered as to whether he will awake from his IED-induced coma. Another will never fully recover from shrapnel wounds that left him bodily a skinny caricature of his former self.
These, you see, are my wars and my compatriots' wars (and many of AM's readers' wars). But they are not America's wars. Listening to NPR this morning on my day off, reading through the newspapers, looking at the most emailed and read articles in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, NY Times, and LA Times, I feel increasingly that service in Afghanistan and Iraq is little regarded and little understood.
What is it that defines these wars for the American people?
Once, service was seen as gallant and bravery lauded. Even in Vietnam, that most hated of wars, 242 were awarded the Medal of Honor. Today's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have resulted in fewer of the nation's highest award for valor in seven years (4 awards) then did a single month in Haiti in 1915 (6 awards including the famous Smedley Butler). And while only 18% of Medals of Honor have been awarded posthumously, none have been awarded to a living US warrior in any theater of the "Global War on Terror." So bravery does not define the war for most Americans--we, the Armed Forces, have taken that one out of the equation.
In the Civil War, World War I, and World War II, national mobilization resulted in a nation at war in which war was defined by family in harm's way and a nation committed to victory. In response to 9/11, America was asked to pay less in taxes and continue to go to the movies and spend as much as possible in order to keep the economy going. The cost of the war was literally passed on to our children and their children so that we could continue life uninterrupted.
War for most Americans, although not for Iraqis and Afghans, remains a spectator sport to which they can feel little emotional attachment. Fewer than one half of one percent of Americans have seen service in Afghanistan and Iraq, and even if we include the broadest reckoning of their friends and loved ones in the equation, 95% or more of all Americans remain profoundly untouched by these wars--even as their long-term security and way of life remains intimately tied to the outcomes.
For most Americans I am growing increasingly to believe, service is defined through the prism of recent reports on PTSD and the failures to provide adequate health care to our wounded warriors at Walter Reed and elsewhere. In a society that has not served, veterans have become a class of victims--a yellow ribbon magnet on your car reminds of the perils of service just as a pink ribbon reminds of the peril of breast cancer and a red ribbon of AIDS.
Of course, service is a choice, not a disease, a choice increasingly required of a citizenry separated by a wall of indifference from the real threat posed by the international takfiri movement.
This Memorial Day, in addition to remembering fallen comrades, I'll hope for a time when the nation again believes its security worth fighting for, its wars worth winning, and its warriors brave.
61 comments:
"95% or more of all Americans remain profoundly untouched by these wars--even as their long-term security and way of life remains intimately tied to the outcomes."
Perhaps because 95% of all Americans don't see any evidence that their 'security and way of life' are at risk and/or protected by these wars?
War for most Americans, although not for Iraqis and Afghans, remains a spectator sport to which they can feel little emotional attachment.
That's because it's easier for those in power to keep the majority of the American public stupid and distracted by American Idol. War is serious business, and for a nation to take it with a half-hearted approach is a dangerous precedent.
But not nearly as serious business as the internet, right LT?
Sorry, sorry...I'll be serious. I do agree wholeheartedly about the medal thing. Pretty much the only way to get a CMOH these days is to die falling on a grenade or holding off a horde of hundreds of enemy soldiers. Just look at the recent recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross/Navy Cross/Air Force Cross. In any other war many of them would've been easily awarded the Medal of Honor. I'm not sure why it is, but it is definitely not a good trend.
I think your 95% observation, tied with the observation about lack of coverage, explains to some degree why Americans have stopped supporting any and all aspects of the wars. They don't understand the military because most of them don't know anyone who serves and their understanding of the events is skewed because the media coverage is so poor (not necessarily overly negative, just overall poor). Their thought process is that the war can't be doing anything good or right and therefore needs to be ended yesterday, forget the consequences.
Memorial Day is for most Americans a long weekend in which, but for the occasional story on World War II and the liberation of France, there is little thought of what it is we ought be memorializing or why.
Actually, this doesn't seem to be the case. At best (worst?), you might say "many" or "half".
According to a Rasmussen poll, 37 percent of Americans know someone serving in Iraq, 36 percent know someone who gave his life in the military, 48 percent planned to do "something special" on Memorial Day to mark the day, and fully 75 percent have a favorable opinion of the military as opposed to 12 percent with an unfavorable view. Flash back forty years and I'll bet that last pair of figures would be reversed. Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
But not nearly as serious business as the internet, right LT?
Actually it's best that the internet is not serious and humorous...that and the internet should have lots of porn. That's just because reality is too depressing some times.
Hm, methinks the LT may not have gotten the joke. Google the phrase "the internet is serious business."
That poll strikes me as a little skewed, Dan. I would be interested in seeing the methodology. Just because someone has a an uncle that he never met and who he rarely remembers who died in Vietnam and therefore answered "yes" to the someone who gave his life in the military question doesn't mean that they really appreciate the sacrifices made by the military.
I was wearing one of my many t-shirts that honor our Military when a middle aged woman asked me if I was aware that all the "military and war was good for was getting killed or disfigured."
I was dumbfounded for a moment then proceeded to tell exactly what our Military was and what it was good for, I'm afraid I may have been speaking way too loud because after I finished most everybody in the store was staring at me. I was a little embarrassed until one woman spoke up and said "Thanks, that was outstanding." Others smiled or nodded.
The silent majority knows, but they are silent most of the time. Of course you have the times like a day or so ago when thousands of motorcycles, thousands of people get a little attention. But not much, except to note that the "bikers" gave President Bush a leather vest and jacket.
The media and the progressives have framed this war on terror. They have framed the Iraqi was as being "Bush's war". They have framed it as a war that "can't be won" and a war where we have lost thousands upon thousands of our children to no good result.
While only a few of us know that Iraq is not "the war" as well as the Afghan is not "the war". We know that they are only the first large battles that are going to be fought all over the world for years and years to come.
Yea, America is at the Mall, while our Military is fighting. But isn't that one of the major reasons that they are fighting? So that our society can continue on and continue without being affected by the terrorists and to keep them from bringing terror to our shores?
All of my grandkids, down to Sweet Sarah who is seven y/o know about the fight we are in, the pain and suffering, the great warriors that we have and the outcome if we don't win all of the battles that we must fight. I made sure of that and it is a regular part of our conversation.
I'm more afraid of the left, progressive, socialists in this country than I am of the continuing invasion of Muslims and Illegals.
Thanks for your write up, it should be required reading.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
I can report that today at a well attended Memorial Day Service at Ft. Rosecrans National Cemetery in San Diego the first wreath laid was by the Gold Star Mothers.
I cannot speak for all of the nation, but there are parts of it that are still very aware of the costs of war.
PS - Kip, you are spot on about the awards for Valor.
What is wrong that more of those are not being given? I refuse to believe it because we don't have brave people serving.
I remember My Lai, Abu Grade and Guantanamo as well, however. That
is the real betrayal of all those
whose lives have been wrecked by
neo-cons hunkering down behind the Green Line in their fancy bunkers.
"What is wrong that more of those are not being given? I refuse to believe it because we don't have brave people serving."
Like I said, it seems that the requirements are set too high. When I said that in order to get a MOH nowadays you have to fall on a grenade or hold off a horde of hundreds of enemy soldiers, I wasn't exaggerating. Since the end of the Vietnam War, 7 MOH have been awarded. Three of those were for jumping on a hand grenade (Jason Dunham, Michael Monsoor, and Ross McGinnis) and three were for holding off a severely numerically superior enemy force against overwhelming odds (Randy Shugart, Gary Gordon, Paul Smith) and one involves a numerically superior force and abandoning cover to make a call for help, sort of combining the two (Michael Murphy).
Compare William Pitsenbarger's citation to Jason Cunningham's. The only difference is the war their actions took place in, yet one received the MOH and one the Air Force Cross.
I watched a Memorial Day parade go by today in my town, a working class place in New England, and I was struck by the strong presence of Vietnam veterans, as well as a few WW2 veterans and one WW1 veteran. But among all the VFW floats and marching formations, there was just one young man wearing some old DCUs - no other reminder of the current wars.
"I feel increasingly that service in Afghanistan and Iraq is little regarded and little understood."
Those of us who pay attention understand all too well.
"Of course, service is a choice, not a disease."
No. Service is an obligation. You defend it as a choice as you defend your dimwitted assumptions about the nature and history of American foreign policy.
You're a professional soldier -a careerist- who defends war because that's all you know.
Bring back the draft. It's good for democracy.
The last honorable war was World War II. Members of my family fought in that war and members of my family also died in the camps. The insurgents were the underground, the partisans and the resistance. COIN was Germany.
You people are the army of mercs Westmoreland worried about.
I have pity for today's recruits, but no respect for their leaders.
Damn Mike, I haven't been rick rolled in at least a month, but good on ya!
The last honorable war was World War II. Members of my family fought in that war and members of my family also died in the camps.
I have always enjoyed how anonymous commenters and blog denizens ensure to share that they are somehow related to folks in the military (usually a grandfather). This allows them moral authority to make ridiculous accusations about the U.S. being the nazis of the 21st century. Please enlighten us, O' wise anonymous, of how to eliminate the hostile threat of Islamic extremists who terrorize the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.
"In the Civil War, World War I, and World War II, national mobilization resulted in a nation at war in which war was defined by family in harm's way and a nation committed to victory."
A very good and true statement. Our nation's survival was at risk during the Civil War and WW II and the citizens responded accordingly.
Concerning the current wars, I'd argue that certain people have tried to frame them as existential, namely Condi Rice and her talk of Iraqi mushroom clouds over American cities. The problem is that most Americans now know that Saddam Hussein was a 2 bit thug/goat herder who only threatened his immediate neighbors, not our families living in the USA. It's tough to mobilize the populace once it is known that the reasons for war were frauds (wmd, democracy in middle east, Iraqi links to Al-Aqaeda). Few Americans wish to serve in order to protect the regime of Nuri al-Maliki, Achmed Chalabi's business interests, or Sheldon Adelson's dream of an expanded and secure Israel.
I hope that is not too heavy for Memorial Day and I did not want to insult or besmirch our fallen servicemen. Our foreign policy must be adjusted so that lives are not wasted on wars that are not based on our nation's security.
I appreciate your perspective, and it's one of the reasons I read this blog. When thinking about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan it's easy to think about the war in terms of anonymous soldiers fighting in a foreign land. It's important to remember that the soldiers are not anonymous, they are individuals who deserve more than passing attention. As someone who does not serve in the military or have a close connection to active duty in the military, I try to make sure that I view American soldiers as more than just an anonymous other.
Not all Americans are at the mall today.
Many thanks to all of you here who are serving or have served in the U.S. Armed Services.
AM, have you considered that perhaps most Americans are not listening to NPR or reading WaPo, WSJ, NYT or LATimes? You made a positive difference when you served in the military and now with this blog you are making a difference in the way Americans think about the GWOT...keep up the fight...and thanks for this thought provoking piece.
"This allows them moral authority to make ridiculous accusations about the U.S. being the nazis of the 21st century"
I defend the legacy of the Roman Republic not the Roman empire. That's the better analogy. And in discussing COIN, we can use the Germans in Poland, the French in Indochina and the British is any number of places including the US. This country was founded by an insurgency.
You're specialty is following orders, as if that were moral in itself.
Sorry son, but it a democracy it isn't.
Nearly all of my 12 uncles (big family) served in the military. Probably 1/4 of all my male cousins, including me, served. None of my dozens of nieces or nephews have served. Most live in southern Indiana and are very, very conservative. As an independent I am considered the flaming lib in the family ( I voted for a Democrat for the first time in 2006). I cannot figure out what is going on. If I even bring the subject up I get hushed up by all the mothers. My son just turned 15 and we talk about it. I take him out to learn to shoot in case he does join.
I am worried about the left because they are afraid of dealing with the military. They just do not get it. I am even more worried about the right. Lots of talk about honor, commitment, support, heroes and so on. Yet, no one enlists and few suffer other than the troops and their families. It seems to me that the right has come to look at the military as a prized attack animal. Bring it out when needed, praise it and then forget about it. The Emperor trots out his prized gladiators and basks in their glory kind of thing.
How did so many forget that these are real people serving us? I wish I had a clue how to make it better. Good luck and thanks guys.
Steve
"I try to make sure that I view American soldiers as more than just an anonymous other."
I can't speak for anyone else here, but that's the biggest thing I personally ask of those who don't have a close connection to the military. We're not a bunch of order following Nazi thugs, but neither are we all a bunch of perfect clean cut baseball and apple pie American Heroes (tm). We're just individuals, as varied as the country we come from, the only difference being that we've chosen to step forward and take an oath.
"You're specialty is following orders, as if that were moral in itself.
Sorry son, but it a democracy it isn't."
Since he's an officer, it actually isn't. His specialty is in supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States. Period. A small but important distinction versus the oath of enlistment that enlisted personnel take.
There is no american left; there's the american right and the american middle. MoveOn.org got its start defending Clinton: not a leftist or even liberal by older standards. Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos, an ex-soldier, pushed hard for Jim Webb and no one worth mentioning complained. If you listen to Fox News then you think Democrats are communists. Meanwhile republicans tried to shoot down the new GI Bill.
"It seems to me that the right has come to look at the military as a prized attack animal."
The only thing about the military that worries me is those who see themselves that way.
That's why I want a return of the draft, with no college deferment.
Actually, knowing that I wasn't getting the perspective you're expressing is a big reason that I have this blog bookmarked and read it fully.
I agree that takfaris are a menace and a danger. OTOH, I severely question the means we have used to address that problem: Afghanistan is a money and aid sink and Iraq, circa 2002, having nothing to do with our real problem and Pakistan, the real problem, mostly unaddressed.
It's not the troops who have made that hash: it's the same leadership that concertedly asks nothing of the American people.
Our security is worth defending; most of our soldiers are (most of the time) brave--and decent; I'm just getting more and more uncertain that any COIN war can ever be 'won' in any meaningful, conclusive sense.
Sorry son, but it a democracy it isn't."
Well, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but America, these somewhat United States of America, is not a democracy, never was, never will be.
It's a Republic.
I suggest you study the differences.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
You're citing Markos "Screw them" Moulitsas as evidence of the American center? Thanks for playing, try again.
And the draft would be the worst thing that could happen for the American military. This isn't WWII, we don't need a large conscript army. We do need a highly professional, highly trained force, which are two things you really don't get with a conscript army.
Kip:
Did you know Andy Stern well? He was a childhood friend of mine. One of the reasons I enlisted.
Democracy vs Republic: Technically you're right to call me on that one, but in this context it's a quibble. My comment still holds.
"You're specialty is following orders, as if that were moral in itself.
Sorry son, but it a Republic it isn't."
"Screw them." Now those were Mercs, and he apologized, though I'm not sure I would.
Whatever happened to the lawsuit against Blackwater? I would side with the families against Erik Prince and his scum any day.
"This Memorial Day, in addition to remembering fallen comrades, I'll hope for a time when the nation again believes its security worth fighting for, its wars worth winning, and its warriors brave."
There is no doubt that our nation's security is worth defending and our warriors are brave. The problem is with the wars that we chose.
Policing and feeding Somalians was a noble act. But was it worth one American life, let alone 18-20? What threat did the ancient battle of Orthodox versus Catholic versus Muslim in the Balkans pose to the security of The United States?
Saddam Hussein invaded Iran, Kuwait, funded suicide bombers in Israel, and gassed his own people. He did not attack the USA on 9/11/01. Why did we invade Iraq as it posed no threat to our nation and people?
The men that attacked us were in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Iraq.
SCIRI, Dawa, women's rights in Iraq, purple fingers in Iraq, building schools in Iraq, fixing sewage lines in Iraq ... none of these are worth one American life.
"Yea, America is at the Mall, while our Military is fighting."
- Lets just make sure that we remember which other Texas native told the country to "keep shopping" after 9/11. don't turn this into a partisan issue papa ray.
the moralistic conservatives who smack support or troops bumper stickers on their gas guzzling SUVs and think that they've done their good deed of the day are just as bad as the union square liberals handing out 'impeach Cheney' flyers.
the entire country is at fault for this. and our ability and seeming to disregard the war from our sheltered lives while the military fights our fights does a disservice to the cause.
What threat did the ancient battle of Orthodox versus Catholic versus Muslim in the Balkans pose to the security of The United States?
I don't know what danger did it cause to the security of the United States, but for us Europeans, it was a very grave concern. It really did destabilize this continent. Should the flames of that war erupt again, it would still cause a lot of danger to the security of the European Union.
That is why some 600 compatriots of mine are still (after over 10 years of continuous presence) in Kosovo and Bosnia. For a nation of 5 million people, that is a good number.
Of course, for the US, the concern for Balkans is secondary, but you did a great job helping us out on that one.
Well, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but America, these somewhat United States of America, is not a democracy, never was, never will be.
It's a Republic.
I suggest you study the differences.
Well, the main difference, as far as I remember from playing Civilisation, is that in a republic you get much higher levels of corruption. Oh, look.
Please enlighten us, O' wise anonymous, of how to eliminate the hostile threat of Islamic extremists who terrorize the people of Iraq
Why the hell is it the business of young men from North Carolina or Texas or Virginia to die in order to ensure the primacy of one violent faction of Iraqis over another?
Kip,
Nice post. Well written and to the point.
My only issue with it is your sensationalistic and repetitive use of the profoundly Un-American term "warrior." This term (along with the media-analyst/force multiplier program) found traction within and was amplified by a politically charged DoD Public Affairs shop led by Larry DiRita, Allison Barber, Dallas Lawrence et al.
We can do without their "warrior" talk. It will be a big step towards de-Rumsfeldizing our political discourse WRT to OIF.
Kip:
Ref Lenny Cowherd. We have a memorial tribute to him and other fallen officers who were History Majors at West Point on the first floor of Thayer. It is a simple, respectful, and pointed memorial. If you like I can get a digital photo of it to you for personal view.
Drop me an email if you wish, AM has my address.
gian
We help maintain the Saudi Monarchy, the Egyptian dictatorship, backed the overthrow of an elected government in Iran and helped to install the Baath, and Saddam Hussein, in Iraq.
We're not in Iraq for humanitarian reasons but in defense of what some would consider our national interest in maintaining at the very least indirect control over oil.
Spreading democracy is quite obviously secondary.
6000 american volunteers and one million Iraqis dead.
1. Lot of specious comments.
2. You have readers venting on issues other than counterinsurgency.
3. Know war well enough don't plan to share it with my young family. Their ignorance of this and innocence pleases me.
4. Can think of three or four problems with #3. So be it.
5. On medals: the standards for various awards for valor have ramped up, over time.
6. Almost every recent DSC or Navy Cross citation I've read, could have resulted in a MOH award in earlier times.
7. The keys to these awards are in the hands of admin types.
8. Two big obstacles confront every award candidate: fear of a medal going to someone unworthy and the pile of documentation needed to support the award.
9. Forty years ago, in my unit, good E-4's got an ARCOM on their way home, E-5's and up got a BSM.
Tacking a "V" on the ribbon was a whole different matter.
10. Knew one E-4 who was awarded a SS. The people I was with generally agreed they were glad they had been able to avoid the sort of trouble he'd gotten into.
11. The military (and society in general) is more rigid and codified than it was back then.
12. Stuff I received a slap on the wrist for back then would merit a court martial and BCD or worse in the current environment.
13. The situation with decorations reflects that.
14. On Memorial Day: now work retail. One customer after another wished me a "Happy Memorial Day."
Nothing happy about it to me. Response: "Thanks, have a nice one yourself."
V/R JW
There's the GOP elephant in the room, i.e. the poltical party and its various conservative factions (neo and otherwise) who pushed most vociferously for this monumentally stupid maneuver into Iraq are the very same people who equate tax increases on Bill Gates with Nazi death camps and who believe it every red-blooded 'Mercan's God-given right to have an SUV and premium unleaded at $1.10 a gallon. So much for "sacrifice".
"No. Service is an obligation. You defend it as a choice as you defend your dimwitted assumptions about the nature and history of American foreign policy.
You're a professional soldier -a careerist- who defends war because that's all you know. "
What a load of horseshit. Someone tell Anom that we currently have an All Volunteer Force, just as we've had for the vast majority of years we've been a Republic.
While we don't know Kip's true identity, he also hardly strikes me as a "careerist." At least, not yet. He sounds like a junior officer who, thus far, has been stuck in the hamster wheel of deployments.
If anything, his writings have taken a hard look at the inability of war to exact the foreign policy goals we seek in the places to which he deploys.
"Members of my family fought in that war and members of my family also died in the camps."
Yeah, and WTF have you done lately? I get so f***ing sick of people who see you in uniform and say, "My dad..." or "My uncle."
They ain't you.
Sorry you see the American combat volunteeer as a "merc" (Westmoreland fought with a conscripted military, too, the one you favor).
The novel thing is that you don't have to be one, unless you get your precious draft.
You're probably too old to serve anyway. Someone else can get drafted. You're all for that.
In which case, you're just a parasite.
A lecture on moral seriousness from an "Imperial Grunt." Do you even know the Westmoreland reference?
Soldiernolongeriniraq,
Glad to see that you've revived the same collegial tone you had over at the old Intel Dump site.
Unfortunately, your very comments bolster those made by the poster who you viciously attacked.
YOU are the epitome of the AVF careerist who has soldiered with minimal oversight/interest from the American populace. This has served you well for two reasons: 1) it allowed you to lord your service over those Americans that have elected not to serve in the military; and wield your experience in public discourse as both an offensive sword and defensive shield; and 2) allowed the military leadership to provide national leadership with advice/opinions/courses of action that could not gain traction with a more broadly representative military.
Now, the very system that you defend/champion is collapsing and you flail like a drowning man trying to disprove/ignore the obvious.
You willfully deceive the uninformed about how recruiting for the AVF actually works or how 20% of our nation's zipcodes are "microtargeted" to provide 90% of the Army's annual recruiting mission. The incessant prospecting of certain areas while others are virtually ignored, undermines your rosy depiction of the AVF.
As GEN Max Thurmann said, "We don't have a volunteer Army, we have a RECRUITED Army."
The jig is up. The very communities/populations that provided the bulwark of the AVF are turning their backs on it - precisely because they and they alone have disproportionately seen their sons/daughters stop-lossed, maimed, killed and forced to wrestle with unseen demons.
Here's a link that just touches on the tip of this iceberg ...
Scranton, PA - a mainstay of the AVF only met 55.6% of its assigned RA enlistment mission in FY2007 and is well behind of its assigned FY08 numbers.
http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19718999&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=415898&rfi=
Demographics and public opinion are not on your side. We've had 35 years of having things "your way" because people like you told us that you "knew" best.
Now we are saddled with a military virtually disconnected from the society it serves and the "well" that has fueled the AVF is running dry.
You can make all the silly comparisons you want to "the vast majority of the years we've been a republic.", but one thing is indisputable. In its time as a global superpower, the US has never maintained such a small, insular military increasingly out oif step with the nation it serves.
And here's from Abu Cowboy's about page
Who we are
"At center, Kip is an Iraq and Afghanistan veteran who focuses on Afghanistan, advising and technology. We're not telling which army -- or even which side -- Kip fought with."
"or even what side"
sexy
Blood or Crip? Blackstone Ranger? (Too young.)
"Glad to see that you've revived the same collegial tone you had over at the old Intel Dump site."
I don't get that. What are you talking about?
SoldiernolongerinIraq,
Ignore anonymous. Like the 9/11 truth crowd, you can't use reason to argue with someone who used no reason to arrive at their conclusions.
Anonymous,
Hope your getting those war crime tribunals ready for me when I come back to the states. I can't wait to get tried. I'll bring the doritos!
"In its time as a global superpower, the US has never maintained such a small, insular military increasingly out oif step with the nation it serves."
Well, if you're going to move the goalposts, then sure. For three decades after Pearl Harbor the US had a draft that typically brought about a third of young adult males into conscripted service, alongside a larger volunteer cadre than previously had existed.
We actually are now at a point of the AVF that's nearly as long as what we had with conscription.
Duh.
What is a bit bracing, however, is the assumption that this arrangement is what the military wanted, either because of the erroneous (frankly, laughable) capability designed to "lord...service over those Americans that have elected not to serve" and "to provide national leadership with advice ... that could not gain traction with a more broadly representative military."
Sure. That was the point behind the AVF.
Are you serious?
The AVF wasn't the desire of the military generals who fought Vietnam and guarded the Fulda Gap. It was the decision of a democratically elected Congress. The end of conscription required a vote in both houses of Congress and the signature of a president and it most definitely wasn't what the many general grade officers of the day thought was best for national security.
It was a political reality in the wake of Vietnam the military had to accept.
Since you don't know, I'll tell you that it was predicated on the most cynical defense and foreign policy platform of all time, which asserted that it would be US nuclear weapons that would be used in the event of a Soviet invasion of Europe, not necessarily Defense in Depth (that was for you, Gian) or any other conventional response.
This was a policy that continued from Nixon to Carter and was found morally repugnant by Ronald Reagan, who determined who actually build a credible AVF military that could respond to crises without resorting to either nuclear arms or bungled rescue missions to besieged embassies.
This also required Congressional action and the signature(s) of a president.
This was the military that was some 40 percent larger than the one we have now, the AVF that fought Desert Storm and conducted Operation Restore Hope.
One might suggest it was far more representative of the American young adult population than the current version, but it also was much larger.
During the drawdown which Gian and I lived through, I don't really recall much happy talk from the generals that this is what they wanted to see happen. It was a political reality they accepted.
As a Republic, not a military, we don't care for conscripted service except in the event of national emergency. In the wake of unpopular wars, we have scuttled the draft (WWI and Vietnam) because that's what democracies do. The queer combination of a bad economy, new global garrisoning duties following WWII and, most important, the rise of the Soviet Union as a world power alongside the PRC and the hot war in Korea extended what would've drastically shrank in the 1950s.
That, too, was a political reality accepted by the military.
For someone who claims to be a former soldier in the IRR, you seem to have a curious understanding of how the military exerts influence within a democracy.
It's not the military that wanted the AVF, but Congress and the presidency, as they articulated what their constituents demanded.
No one in the military discusses conscription as a viable policy today because no one seriously believes it could be reconstituted adequately to actually serve the mission (typically, two year terms are invoked, which is unsatisfactory for most military skillsets).
Soldiernolongeriniraq,
Thanks for your response. For the record, I'm not an idiot - I've actually spent some time reading/thinking/writing about these issues before weighing in on them.
That said, I never asserted that the reasons currently serving senior officers want to keep the existing AVF arrangement were the reasons why it came into being.
Any reading of the Gates Commission and other source data, clearly show that many senior leaders in the Army were opposed to the AVF.
Alas, time have changed.
Today we have an Army clearly overstretched and that needs to be expanded. Despite this need, senior officers who have benefitted from the AVF arrangement in both accumulated prestige from an increasingly clueless public and wide lattitude to deploy "volunteers", have vigorously opposed a number of sensible proposals to "grow" the Army and increase service opportunities.
Let's not conflate Nixon-era debates with the very real issues at hand. Many of today's senior leaders like having a professional military whose rank-and-file are almost completely detached from influencers and decisionmakers.
That is what I am trying to say. The current arrangement is untenable, yet you defend it because reverting to a more representative force diminishes your bully pulpit and inserts a democratic/political tension into the use of personnel.
"Please enlighten us, O' wise anonymous, of how to eliminate the hostile threat of Islamic extremists who terrorize the people of Iraq"
J*s*s F*cking H. Chr*st - we're *backing* the Islamic extremists. The Shiite ones, with strong ties to the government of Iran.
And any Sunni Arab Islamic extremists, so long as they claim not to be Al Qaida.
-Barry
Time to explode AVF Propaganda Myth #1:
"typically, two year terms are invoked, which is unsatisfactory for most military skillsets)."
Really?
Tell me why we offer 2 year enlistments in an INCREASING number of MOS's then? If this statement were grounded in truth, the Army would be DECREASING the range of MOS' covered under the 2 year enlistment option - instead we are EXPANDING the range of those MOSs.
Ditto for the 15 month "national call to service" enlistment option.
By dwelling on the short term of service, you neglect the obvious postives:
1) a broader pool of trained, military manpower to leverage in a large scale emergency.
2) a broader pool of individuals that may continue with a reserve career.
3) the serendipity effect of retaining good soldiers who may never have considered the military unless they were "told" to.
4) The obvious benefits of national cohesion and shared sacrifice
So, 2 years isn't long enough to make an effective 88M,
92F or 11B. Spare me.
We are sending kids days out of OSUT/AIT to Iraq to units where they are strangers.
We are recalling IRR soldiers 3-5 years out of uniform, giveing them 6 weeks of "training" in a new MOS and deploying them as "trained."
Your argument only works on the uninformed. For those that know anything about the Army's current personnel situation, your rhetoric rings as hollow as talking points spouted by Allison Barber, larry DiRita or "very serious war scholars" like Michael O'Hanlon.
soldiernolongeriniraq,
typically, two year terms are invoked, which is unsatisfactory for most military skillsets
I thought that the usual period of enlistment is three years. Do you really imply that a person with less than two years experience is unable to carry out their duties? You know, some infantrymen are deployed to Iraq with only 14 weeks of training.
Of course, you need experienced NCOs and solid officer corps, but there are a lot of duties on E2-E3 levels that do not require two years of training to be carried out competently.
Anon,
Prior to the Iraq debacle, the Army offerred 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 year enlistments. 4 years was the "gold standard" and a 3 year hitch was needed to secure "full" GI Bill benefits.
Then, the Army began offering a 15 month enlistment option under the "national call to service" program - albeait with greatly diminished educational benefits.
Since Iraq kicked off, the Army has moved the goalposts without telling anyone. Pre-war, the 2 year hitch was open to a limited range of "low skill" MOSs (the Army's words not mine) like Infantry, Artillery, Air Defense, Truck Driver, Fueler, etc. Now, the range of MOSs covered by the 2 year enlistment has expanded in both number and complexity.
But we're supposed to believe the lie that 2 year enlistments are too short.
Which is it? Too short a hitch only if the draft is mentioned, but a-ok for volunteers.
"That is what I am trying to say. The current arrangement is untenable, yet you defend it because reverting to a more representative force diminishes your bully pulpit and inserts a democratic/political tension into the use of personnel."
Really? I didn't know you knew me. I have no idea who you are, and yet I don't project onto you a similar biography.
I defend the AVF because it's the only system Congress is giving me. If Congress wishes to give me another system, or to take seriously what thus far have been partisan suggestions about a draft, perhaps I'll have a different system to endorse.
In my service, I only had one sort of system to endorse. I don't doubt that the AVF is a system that could work because I saw it work for far more people in the 1980s and 1990s.
Currently, the USAF, USN, USMC and USCG aren't exactly complaining about the AVF. Perhaps they're too busy "lording over" their service to the ignorant masses or bamboozling Congress with their super-secret know-how.
I hear we'll be getting a secret handshake soon, too. I don't know if those in the IRR will receive it.
I also didn't think I was merely engaging in "rhetoric." I would be quite surprised if the vast majority of NCOs and officers in all the branches of the military, including the Army, didn't believe that the current system is better than what has been mock-proposed elsewhere, including the latest iteration of Charlie Rangel's bluster.
The last time I checked, 70 percent of the American people were opposed to a draft. I don't well imagine we'll be seeing one soon.
In 2004, a vote on Rangel's law was defeated in the House 2-402. When a proposed piece of legislation loses by only 400 votes, perhaps there's hope!
And, no, Rangel didn't vote for his own measure.
Since there are no serious proposals for conscription by anyone in DoD or Congress I guess I'll continue to say that what we have now is better than the pie-in-the-sky musings of IRR soldiers on internet chat boards.
Hard to fight that logic, actually.
Currently in the USA, including AR and ARNG, there are some 20 percent of MOSs that are overfilled, and 40 percent (give or take) that are underfilled. I'd like to think that maybe Comptroller of DoD and Chu at Manpower could do something about that, but one never knows.
That's a problem one would think could be cogently solved without drafting people.
As for the uninformed business about the two-year span, this is from Rangel's legislation:
"Universal National Service Act of 2007 - Declares that it is the obligation of every U.S. citizen, and every other person residing in the United States, between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a two-year period of national service, unless exempted, either as a member of an active or reserve component of the armed forces or in a civilian capacity that promotes national defense."
Perhaps you would like to lead a 42 year old facing a tour in OIF on a two year contract, but I and most others would say that's just plain stupid.
Soldiernolongeriniraq,
Where do I begin? This is the same game you used to play on other sites. I'll indulge just this once.
QUOTE:
"I defend the AVF because it's the only system Congress is giving me. If Congress wishes to give me another system, or to take seriously what thus far have been partisan suggestions about a draft, perhaps I'll have a different system to endorse."
REPLY:
Your words suggest that you are anything but a default defender of the status quo. You proffered a standard pro-AVF talking point on short terms of service. When I called you out by stating that the Army is expanding the complexity of MOSs covered by the 2 year hitch in the middle of two wars, you backtrack and say you have no real preference.
QUOTE:
"I also didn't think I was merely engaging in "rhetoric." I would be quite surprised if the vast majority of NCOs and officers in all the branches of the military, including the Army, didn't believe that the current system is better than what has been mock-proposed elsewhere, including the latest iteration of Charlie Rangel's bluster."
REPLY:
That's partly because the superiority of the AVF has been accepted as an article of faith in the modern military - much the same way that many have internalized the Vietnam-stabbed-in-the-back meme that we "lost" only because of a weak-willed populace on the home front. Just because someone "believes" it doesn't mean it's true.
The draft-era force - actually comprised of draftees and volunteers - has been denigrated, dismissed and unfairly described in the the "oral history" passed down within our Army. This is a shame. When young officers think of the Army we sent to Vietnam, the mental image painted for them is the end-state Americal Division filled with shake-and-bake NCOs and LT Calleys rather than the strak troopers (draftee and volunteer) that comprised Hal Moore's 7th Cavalry at the Ia Drang.
If portrayed in a more blanced manner - namely that it spurred many volunteers for all the services - and ensured that no first-termer would have to go to Vietnam a second time unless they reupped for more, perhaps it would gain more acceptance in our deployment weary force.
QUOTE:
"In 2004, a vote on Rangel's law was defeated in the House 2-402. When a proposed piece of legislation loses by only 400 votes, perhaps there's hope!
And, no, Rangel didn't vote for his own measure."
REPLY:
You fail to enlighten the reader with the backstory here ... The GOP controlled house brought this to the floor for a vote days before a Presidential election in 2004. You accuse Rep. Rangel of political posturing while ignoring Speaker Hastert's role in bringing it to a vote for political reasons.
The Rangel language you cite is a strawman. Since earlier in your rant you say that it is the "latest iteration of Charlie Rangel's bluster", why do you cite this very language to bolster your point.
Which is it? Bluster or Language to bolster your belief the AVF is superior?
No serious regime of national service would take 42 year old draftees (barring an exigent threat to national survival.) That said, we are currently enlisting 41 year old "losers in life" as TX Hammes calls them, for FOUR year enlistments which in many MOSs equals 3 tours overseas w/ the third on stop loss.
"Since you don't know, I'll tell you that it was predicated on the most cynical defense and foreign policy platform of all time, which asserted that it would be US nuclear weapons that would be used in the event of a Soviet invasion of Europe, not necessarily Defense in Depth (that was for you, Gian) or any other conventional response.
This was a policy that continued from Nixon to Carter and was found morally repugnant by Ronald Reagan, who determined who actually build a credible AVF military that could respond to crises without resorting to either nuclear arms or bungled rescue missions to besieged embassies."
First of all, the EDP (European Defense Plan), in which the U.S. would counter any Soviet incursion in to West Berlin or Western Europe proper with nuclear arms, went all the way back to at least Eisenhower. Kennedy discussed the possibility of putting it into effect during the Cuban Missile Crisis if, in the event of a U.S. strike on Cuba, Khrushchev moved on Berlin.
If Reagan saw the use of nuclear arms for the defense of Western Europe as "morally repugnant", then why didn't he pull the Pershings out in '83? Or after his defense buildup was completed my 1985 or so? Reagan hagiographers always point to his continued stationing of the Pershings in West Germany - one of several policy gifts Carter bequeathed that benefited him - as one of the keys to his single-handed destruction of the Soviet Union (if you subscribe to that particular narrative of history, which I do not).
"Where do I begin? This is the same game you used to play on other sites. I'll indulge just this once."
There seems to be some projection here. I have no idea who you are.
"When I called you out by stating that the Army is expanding the complexity of MOSs covered by the 2 year hitch in the middle of two wars, you backtrack and say you have no real preference."
I've actually seen the numbers of people enlisted in these contracts. Beyond your bluster, have you?
I thought not. One would think that "backtracking" by the Army would imply that the Army was putting drastically more people into service under these contracts.
Hmmmmm...
"The draft-era force - actually comprised of draftees and volunteers - has been denigrated, dismissed and unfairly described in the the "oral history" passed down within our Army."
Wow, that comes as some surprise to me. I didn't realize there was such a project underway, and for only three decades, too!
Could someone inform me when this PowerPoint will be delivered? Or do I have to sign up for the "oral" version?
The reason why the AVF is seen as adequate is because it has been for much of its existence. Frankly, if the AVF Army was the same size now as the one that fought in Desert Storm, I'm not sure we would be entertaining your novel musings on the subject.
But we're 40 percent, give or take, smaller than in 1991.
I haven't heard many peers in the USN, USMC, USCG or USAF agitating for more bodies, perhaps through conscription, but you might get out more than I do.
"Which is it? Bluster or Language to bolster your belief the AVF is superior?"
Your conjecture seemed to be that the conscription policy that had been proposed for the military didn't involve solely two-year commitments.
I must assume that the two bills proposed for conscription are the most serious proposals we have seen, considering they're the only ones to get votes one way or the other in Congress.
I simply quoted the very language from that statute. Charlie Rangel wanted to create a military (and other federal civilian service) built on two-year hitches. This is so self-evident to anyone who reads the language, that you now must say it isn't.
You, like Rangel, seem to believe that we can adequately stock our infantry, transportation, field artillery and other vital assets with two-year draftees as we did 40 years ago.
I submit that we can't, even if we have taken in some on shorter contracts (and now stoploss them anyway, should the MOSs be valuable enough).
You seek to shift the subject again by saying it wasn't a fair vote on the statute (one that lost by only 400 votes), but I submit to you that a proposed piece of legislation disliked by 70 percent of the American people isn't likely to get enacted.
So while you want to discuss myths (officers really just like to "lord over" their service, blah, blah, blah) and absent your investigation of the issue seriously by bypassing Nixon era concerns, the reality is that the Nixon era concerns are the ones still in the public's mind.
The American people don't want a draft. It wouldn't matter if every swinging dick in all the armed forces wanted one because the people, their Congress and their president don't want it.
That's a legacy of Vietnam that's not likely to go away very soon. Indeed, that's what truly animates Rangel's faux legislation. No one seriously believes Charlie Rangel wants a draft or that his constituents wouldn't boot him from office if he got one passed through.
He just wants to make an empty political gesture.
Fair enough. But don't expect anyone in uniform to take it seriously.
"The Rangel language you cite is a strawman. Since earlier in your rant you say that it is the "latest iteration of Charlie Rangel's bluster", why do you cite this very language to bolster your point."
It came straight from the legislation.
If you champion the bill so heartily, I would suggest you actually read it. It's available online or at your neighborhood Congress.
"95% or more of all Americans remain profoundly untouched by these wars--even as their long-term security and way of life remains intimately tied to the outcomes."
" citizenry separated by a wall of indifference from the real threat posed by the international takfiri movement."
For whatever reason this comment really pissed me off, and while I am an avid reader of this blog and quite a few COIN, small wars, and foriegn policy blogs and journals, I still do not have a very good view of the big picture,or the threats that exist to our 'way of life'whatever that is and so I find it a bit arrogant for all of you who live in COIN land to critize the average American, who in their limited time has access to zero good sources of information from the MSM.
Do not get me wrong, I have the utmost repect for the serious brianiacs who write and frequent this and many other fantastic blogs , and value the comments and discourse that take place, but i guess what pisses me off is that beyond these blogs that are read by only a truly tiny amount of the population, what are any of you who critisizes the average American for their 'indifference' doing to actually educate the average American on the real deal of the threats we face.
Our national discourse has been boiled down to either we are bombing the crap out of a random muslim nation or we are isolationists, stay the course or surrender, terrorist lover or patriot. WTF. So naturally people are indifferent.
When was the last time you saw something intelligent said by any particular bought and paid for 'expert' in under ten seconds on any major network's Sunday morning show. Please explain to me our foriegn policy goals, a complete list of the threat we face and how we intend to deal with them, in under thirty seconds, while choking Hannity so he cannot interupt. Starting.....now!
I am a former fleet Marine with a few active fleet Marine friends, I read on this topic religiously everyday, and do my damndest to get a grip on the reallities we face, and apperently I still dont get it. If I dont get it, what chance does the average indifferent American of having any real understanding of the reallities we face.
M. Hoppe
Sorry for the crappy formating and spelling in the above post. I am super tired as my son is teething or has come to the conclusion that sleep is for the weak.
M Hoppe
M: Hoppe: Good on ya. Understanding todays political landscape is damned near impossible, insofar as it is not so much a democratic process as it is conflicts between sets of playas, with hidden motives and agendas all round.
And on the usual argument about how the left ate your babies, would just like to point out that I am a proud anarchist-syndicalist and served my year in the Norwegian Army quite happily. From what I have seen on the internet, it seems to me that US soldiers come in many various guises, both democrat, republicans and dontgiveashits. Blaming one group over the other for the state of your country on memorial day of all days seems wrong and divisive. Rather y`all should look to how your political system functions: If a Norwegian politican gets caught cheating on the taxi-bills he has to quit immedeatly. In the US, he can "loose" a cool billion and still not face criminal charges. Is it any wonder if people dont care what the hyperrich are doing with their playmobil soldiers (that is you, sirs)?
1. SoldiernolongerinIraq: you are letting the anti-war boneheads get to you.
2. No one is more anti-war than we are.
3. Was a draftee in the late sixties.
4. Watched VOLAR evolve into the AVF.
5. In VN, the draftees averaged a couple years older than volunteers. A sizeable portion were college dropouts. They were better educated and more sophisticated than the volunteers and tended to gravitate into organizational and other leadership positions.
6. The transition to VOLAR was rocky because of the low quality of enlistees.
7. Gradually, all the services have raised their standards.
8. In 1968 about half the people reporting to AFEES did not qualify for induction.
9. The number would be much higher today, with the higher standards.
10. The nasty downside to that is that a very high percentage of minority applicants simply don't qualify. Under conscription, that fact would be screamed to the heavens by the race card players.
11. In the meantime, the current force is incredibly capable, compared to predecessors in which I served.
12. The most capable foreign army I have seen was the NVA and associated irregulars. Sure didn't realize it at the time.
13. Have served alongside several military forces and found them all inferior to our military of that time.(Including the IA)
14. Am bowled over by the quality of our enlisted men and junior officers.
15. Insiders, folks with anti-military chips on shoulder, and foreigners will not see this.
16. Thing is, had I been qualified to judge at the time, would have given the unit I fought with in VN a good rating. At the time, I thought we were horrible.
17. Was waiting for SGT Rock and an elite cadre of soldier gods to replace the losers I was serving with and conduct a sensible campaign. At 19 and then 20, didn't know how things really worked.
18. Doubt the leadership at the top of the COC is more capable than in days past. Know their political masters have goals that are often anathema to attaining military objectives.
19. The rank and file of the AVF may well retrieve victory from the ashes, despite #18.
20. May God bless and preserve our fighting forces.
V/R JW
"14. Am bowled over by the quality of our enlisted men and junior officers.
15. Insiders, folks with anti-military chips on shoulder, and foreigners will not see this."
Sir, as a foreigner and an anti-military (in the sense that I am against large groups of people killing each other on principle, we should all drink tea and give the power to the women) I can still recognise the level of skill *parts* of the US forces have shown, and the adaptability is truly remarkable. It is possible to oppose deployment-decisions without hating the deployed, you know?
I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2008/06/re-memorial-day.html
Post a Comment