« NeoCon In & Realist Out: Shuffling the Deck Chairs at the State Department | Home | Want to keep your job? Get a vasectomy »
from a reader, from the boston globe i'm told
"veterans' advocates and their allies in Congress [say the] system...is vastly unprepared and under funded to handle the onslaught of 1.5 million veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who are returning home, an estimated one in five of them with post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. One in three Iraq war veterans is seeking mental health services, according to a report by an Army panel of experts last year."
Advertisement
For those young people that oppose the war and don't want to serve, but claim to support the troops,...why don't they volunteer to help out at these hospitals to help these wounded warriors recover.
March 4, 2007 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You suppport the troops while they're fighting. Afterwards, well, they aren't troops any more, so there's no point in supporting them. The logic is quite compelling.
In times of peace, the wise man prepares for war. -- Horace
The blade itself incites to violence. -- Homer
March 4, 2007 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
While the Administration has cared shamefully, some of the internal military approaches, going well before the current Administration, are worth noting. I'm most familiar with Army practice.
Especially for experienced people, when the disability is physical and permanent, they may be given a choice: take an honorable medical retirement, or, if they want, they will be given all practical help to return to duty. For example, loss of part of either or both legs is not necessarily disqualifying for service in appropriate roles. In 1991, the commanding general and chief of staff of VII Corps joked that they went together to buy a pair of boots; each was missing a foot or lower leg. There are a lot of civilian organizations that won't tolerate as much.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
March 4, 2007 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I support the troops" is a meaningless, vacuous phrase used by people who feel they need to show how "patriotic" they are. The newest introduction of lame attempts to show patriotism is thanking Vets for their service.
Do I support the troops by buying a car magnet that announces my patriotism, a magnet I may have bought at Walmart on sale for $1.29? The "I support the troops" car magnets are as meaningless as 'Baby on Board" car magnets.
I must admit
I'm quite confused as to what it really means. Senator Trent Lott, addressing Clinton
and Kosovo, said: "I can support the troops but not the President." No explanation there. When George Bush cuts funding for disabled veterans, and when his VA sends out notices to VA facilities telling them to refrain from notifying veterans about programs they are entitled to, my confusion is reinforced, because I'm sure George Bush supports the troops....doesn't he?
Maybe "support the troops" is a multi-use phrase that means whatever you want it to mean at any given moment. I do find that whenever I hear "support the troops", the words "anti-American" soon follow. Sadly, I think both terms are now used as a weapon by demagogues to attack their political opposites. My confusion really reigns
supreme when I hear Vietnam war supporters and draft dodgers like; Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly of FOX etc., who, when they were needed by the military during the Vietnam years, found a way to avoid serving, and are now attacking those who disagree with them as being either anti-American or not supporting the troops. I'm sure irony is lost on their fans as some who are being attacked by these cretins, e.g. Sen. Max Cleland, John Kerry, Al Gore, are people who not only enlisted, but served in Vietnam. And remember, as an American GI, wherever you were in Vietnam, your life was in danger.
A question hangs in the air; Who actually supports the troops, the pro war or the
anti war side? The pro war crowd forever seem eager to send the troops in harms way,
while the anti-war crowd wants to bring them home. Anti war protesters during the Vietnam years were accused of not supporting the troops, yet if these protesters had their way we may not have lost 58,000 dead and innumerable casualties now crippled for life. Vietnam has now been a Communist state for a thirty years and how has it affected us? It hasn't, we're actually trading with them today.
I constantly hear people clamoring for tax cuts, because as politicians constantly tell them, especially at election time, they pay too much. Now it seems to me that
there has to be a point where cutting federal taxes (I know I'm on dangerous ground here) starts to have a negative effect on supporting the troops as it is very expensive to support our armed forces. As for myself, I'll support the troops by gladly paying enough taxes to provide them with the best training, best equipment and medical care, best intelligence, a good standard of living for them and their families, a promise to attend to their needs should they become disabled, alliances throughout the world with other friendly countries, and a solemn vow to NOT support any leader who wishes to use these troops for political or economic advantage rather than the safety of the American public or in alliance with others for altruistic reasons, such as stopping mass murder or genocide happening in real time. All of which leads me to quote George Carlin:
"I guess I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
March 5, 2007 5:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
For me, that's a good definition of support. While it happened for a number of reasons, there are sad examples of not supporting troops being sent into the Korean War. One of the first ground units sent, Task Force Smith, took 150 casualties out of 500 men and only delayed the enemy for half a day. The troops were poorly trained, they had old ammunition and not enough of it, and the unit was understrength for its mission, all due to massive cost-cutting at the end of WWII. This speaks to your observation about cutting taxes, and to the principle that you don't get overconfident and go into operations for which you aren't prepared, unless it is a matter of national survival or there is no other choice.
There have been no-choice situations, such as places where an isolated force was attacked, as at Wake Island in WWII. Had there been a general nuclear war with the fUSSR, bomber pilots (1) believed they would hit most of their targets but (2) had very little chance of surviving.
Support also involves rational policies. The Vietnam situation, for the US, really goes back to 1945-7, when Ho Chi Minh, then a leader of a coalition that included Communists and non-Communists, asked for US assistance in not becoming a full French colony again. His proposals started with a phased decolonization, with compensation to the French, or actually coming under the US as a protectorate aimed for independence, like the Phillipines. See the book by the OSS team commander, MAJ Archimedes Patti, Why Viet Nam? Prelude to America's Albatross. Both then and again in 1954, reflexive US anticommunism prevented something that might well have been a nationalist (i.e., mostly independent) Communist state, much like Yugoslavia. Under Tito, Yugoslavia selectively worked with the USSR, but was not quite a puppet. Had Ho been the leader of Vietnam, however, I believe that the nation would have stayed together after his death, as opposed to Tito's. While the former Indochina was not homogeneous, it had nothing like the simmering ethnic hatred in the former Yugoslavia.
Paraphrasing COL Harry Summers in On Strategy, another problem during Vietnam was that Americans took out their frustration with decisions made by civilian policymakers, such as LBJ and McNamara, on uniformed executors of policy. There are few good things about Iraq, but one good one is that the protest is directed at the truly responsible individuals.
There once was a time, after WWII but perhaps no longer possible, where the US Air Rescue Service (an Air Force organization, but the mission includes Coast Guard) could radio to a hostile country and announce they were on a rescue mission. If it wasn't recovering aircrew from a plane that was attacking them, quite a number of generally hostile countries would permit rescue operations. That kind of acceptance of good will should be a goal, if an impossible dream.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
March 5, 2007 6:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
... "volunteer to help out..." ?
Okay ... keyboard warrior.
You're on bedpan, catheter and colostomy bag patrol.
~OGD~
ps: Who're you calling young?
March 5, 2007 6:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
300,000 post-traumatic stress disorder cases ???
Like the 3-Star Generals who have to interupt their Martini time at the 'O' club so they can appear before the various Senate committees and be good little soldiers for carrying the water for the likes of a Rumsfeld, a Cheney or the Chump-in Chief? (oh I know ... everyone has their orders...)
~OGD~
ps: When the capt'n acts a scoundrel, mutiny is not far behind...
March 5, 2007 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
In fairness, I worked for two three-stars (Air Force & Army) in their first civilian jobs, which were research or government service, and occasionally briefed a vice admiral on active duty. They seemed pretty decent people, focused on results.
Of course there are people that hang out at the O Club, but others that don't. Yes, some of the ones I knew would have to go before the Senate, but they came in early and left late to do a fair day's work on the mission.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
March 5, 2007 6:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good for them ... maybe another Christmas decoration on there uniform ...
My point is... it's really not about them...
300,000 post-traumatic stress disorder cases ???
~OGD~
March 5, 2007 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I won't doubt these two 3 stars were nice people when you met them, when they were out of government.
I have the uneasy feeling that far too many flag officers are too career oriented. Always looking for their next star, the 1 star pleases the two star, who pleases the 3 star, who pleases the 4 star who is kissing the President's ass. Just a feeling I have from things I've read and heard over the last 20 or so years.
I just had an afterthought.
I've had some personal dealings with Flag Officers and they seemed to speak a different language than today's Generals speak. Or maybe they spoke in some different tone. Today's Generals always seem to be into PoliticSpeak. They talk for 10 minutes and you have no idea what they just said. And heaven forbid you need to ask them about a problem in their arena and what went wrong.
Maybe its because I see them either in front of the press or in front of a Congressional Committee?.....No, its just different and it doesn't give me much confidence.
March 5, 2007 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
The three-stars were all in technical roles, two in communications and one in intelligence, for which it's very unusual to move to four stars. In some respects, one of the major responsibilities of those terminal posts is to select their successors. In the past, the British Navy had a custom where retiring commanders-in-chief could promote three (or so) officers without regard to regulations, but for the good of the service, with nothing to gain personally.
There are certainly careerists. Sometimes, when the gods shine, doing the right thing is what advances the career. HR McMaster's book Dereliction of Duty gives an insight of the soul-searching among senior officers during Vietnam, and how some, like the Army Chief of Staff, rue that they did not resign in protest, but felt, at the time, they could do more inside.
An average, successful career ends at pay grade O-5, lieutenant colonel/Navy commander. About 10-25 percent make it to O-6, colonel/Navy captain, which tends to be the most independent senior command. Perhaps 10 percent move up to their first star, and one of the requirements for most flag posts is the ability to work with other organizations, including civilian leadership. At each level, a small fraction make the next promotion; technical specialties often end at 2 or 3, sometimes 1, star. I have two inlaws that retired at 1 star, one due to illness and possibly (stories vary) punching out a boss that cost a lot of lives. The other, who had been the lead trainer of the Tuskegee Airmen, really wanted to become an academic.
Senior officers, with notable exceptions, tend to need a fairly strong ego to progress. McMaster, a very respected colonel, is one such, and 5-star Omar Bradley often was considered rather modest. 5-star Eisenhower was affable in public but could be ruthless internally.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
March 5, 2007 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bradley was down to earth with the troops, as was Ike, and the most I ever saw Ike pissed is the day I was posted outside his door and he and Beetle were coming out. He told Bedel (beetle) Smith to '"keep those fu**ing guys (us) out of my liquor cabinet", though he had a little smile on his face when he said it. I always thought Ike said it loud enough for my benefit.
Smith always seemed distant.
Most of the Generals I met along with Ike, Bradley and Smith,
like Truscott, Hodges, Gerow, Patch, were pretty friendly. Patton, you never could tell about him. One day he would be smiling, the next he would be growling. Maybe he was moody.
Patton had a high pitched voice, Montgomery's ( who I was near once or twice) was whiney. If you ever heard those two chatting you would laugh your ba**s off.
By the way, every time I hear the new Sec of Defense Robert Gates speak I think of Patton/Monty
March 5, 2007 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Smith was brilliant, but was Ike's hatchet man, although a fantastic staffer.
Every biographer that had access to Patton's inner circle both found him very moody, but that some of his public personality was an act. One of his orderlies met him while he was practicing, in a calm voice, wearing a robe and slippers, one of his thunderous speeches. One of the things I liked about him was that if he found out he had chewed out someone quite junior, and they had been doing the right thing, he made a number of public apologies. It was with the public and senior staff that he needed a muzzle.
Incidentally, Patton was a magnificent writer of prose, and not a bad poet. His autobiography, War as I knew it is an excellent read, as are some of his tactical articles and reports.
The Monty saying I shall never forget was when he described his plan after success at Arnhem (MARKET-GARDEN) was to "leap forward like a savage rabbit." Admittedly, I thought about this when chased by a rabbit that had been experimented on by one of my professors, again when watching Monty Python, and eventually when Jimmy Carter fought off the savage water rabbit.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
March 5, 2007 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
When word spread that Patton pissed in the Rhine as he promised he would we laughed about it for a week. :)
March 5, 2007 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then Churchill tried it, but they hadn't cleared out all the snipers. There's a story that he laughed and got under cover when an aide pointed out that it was unwise to expose a large target to the enemy...
He is also reputed to have been in the gents' at the House of Commons, when Attlee came in, and Churchill moved as far down as the urinal would permit.
"Irritable today, Winston?"
"No. It is that whenever you see anything large, you wish to nationalize it."
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
March 5, 2007 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, and this discussion between Howard and JohnW began on such a lofty plain... ! :)
March 5, 2007 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhh....we can move it to a medical thread and get into urology.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
March 5, 2007 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I know that song, by Urethra Franklin, right?
March 5, 2007 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did she do "Please don't go?"
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
March 5, 2007 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieutenant Patton was already a flamboyant character and a man that could deliver results when he was 30 and serving in Mexico. He was responsible for one of the few successful attacks and killings of Pancho Villas officers. He and a handful of men attacked the ranch. Patton shot Julio Cardenas and his horse at 20 paces with his Colt 45 revolver (later with ivory handles) and strapped his body to the hood of his Dodge and drove it through the countryside like a trophy. The press made him a household name. In that gunfight, Patton had been fired upon while reloading. He would never serve without two sidearms again.
March 5, 2007 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of Pancho Villa, you remind me of a Mexican, a judge IIRC, who puts current spin doctors to shame. There was a dispute about two skulls, both alleged to be of Pancho Villa.
The ruling? "This one is the skull of Pancho Villa as a man. This is the skull of Pancho Villa as a boy."
Show me a White House spokesman that comes close to that, and I'll show you someone who proves Mother Teresa is still alive and under the alias of Dick Cheney.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
March 5, 2007 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
An interesting aspect of the military is that at any given time, there are, no doubt, hundreds of general officers on active duty, yet the public gets to hear of only a few. If I asked 100 people who James M. Gavin was I'd be surprised if 3 knew.
March 5, 2007 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmph. I could probably list a good portion of the general and flag officer slots, but I'd have a lot more trouble saying who is in them. Offhand, I can give you the JCS, most of the Component Commanders and Service Chiefs, and a good chunk of CENTCOM.
History is a lot easier, as for Jumpin' Jim. Apropos of not much, I always wondered why GEN Jumper went Air Force -- or maybe Airborne is the last thing in the world he wanted. Shades of Major Major, and I do know of a Thomas Minor who was a major before his promotion.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
March 5, 2007 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I was in Mexico last month I saw a historic poster (1915) that showed Villa and his boys, and the poster in English was a recruiting poster for Americans to come join him for adventure and glory, "needed machine gunners, dynamiters, and railroaders."
Funny story about the Judge.
March 5, 2007 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jumpin Jim was also called Slim Jim.
March 6, 2007 5:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
In France we learned the French called the Germans "le boche", and for some unknown reason the term became something to utter for no apparent reason, and whenever it was uttered, we'd all laugh. It could happen at any time and I still remember certain times.
After Holland we were back at base camp, and one night we're in the tent going to sleep, or trying, when someone uttered "le boche", and you could hear a low laugh permeate the tent. (I'm laughing as I'm typing this.")
During The Bulge I was sitting crouched in a foxhole in Vielsalm, Belgium, with a guy named Jimmy Sweeney. It was night, I was freezing my ba**s off, and I had a blanket over my head, my helmet on top of the blanket, trying to cover as much as I could when I heard Sweeney utter; "le boche", and as cold and miserable as I was, I still laughed heartily.
I guess "you had to be there".
March 6, 2007 6:11 AM | Reply | Permalink