How America Screws Its Soldiers

[Richard]

Everyone claims to “Support Our Troops” - Bacevich claims telling the military it can do whatever it wants works for everyone...except for the soldiers themselves.

Richard

How America Screws Its Soldiers
Andrew Bacevich, DailyBeast, 28 May 2011

Riders on Boston subways and trolleys are accustomed to seeing placards that advertise research being conducted at the city’s many teaching hospitals. One that recently caught my eye, announcing an experimental “behavioral treatment,” posed this question to potential subjects: “Are you in the U.S. military or a veteran disturbed by terrible things you have experienced?”

Just below the question, someone had scrawled this riposte in blue ink: “Thank God for these Men and Women. USA all the way.”

Here on a 30 x 36 inch piece of cardboard was the distilled essence of the present-day relationship between the American people and their military. In the eyes of citizens, the American soldier has a dual identity: as hero but also as victim. As victims—Wounded Warriors —soldiers deserve the best care money can buy; hence, the emphasis being paid to issues like PTSD. As heroes, those who serve and sacrifice embody the virtues that underwrite American greatness. They therefore merit unstinting admiration.

Whatever practical meaning the slogan “support the troops” may possess, it lays here: in praise expressed for those choosing to wear the uniform, and in assistance made available to those who suffer as a consequence of that choice.

From the perspective of the American people, the principal attribute of this relationship is that it entails no real obligations or responsibilities. Face it: It costs us nothing yet enables us to feel good about ourselves. In an unmerited act of self-forgiveness, we thereby expunge the sin of the Vietnam era when opposition to an unpopular war found at least some Americans venting their unhappiness on the soldiers sent to fight it. The homeward-bound G.I. spat upon by spoiled and impudent student activists may be an urban legend, but the fiction persists and has long since trumped reality.

Today such egregious misbehavior has become unimaginable. Even if the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not especially popular or successful, no one blames the troops. Instead we cheer them, pray for them, and let them go to the front of the line when passing through airport security. And we take considerable satisfaction in doing so.

From the perspective of those who engineer America’s wars, the principal attribute of this relationship is that it obviates any need for accountability. For nearly a decade now, popular willingness to “support the troops” has provided unlimited drawing rights on the United States Treasury.

Since 9/11, in waging its various campaigns, overt and covert, the United States military has expended hundreds of billions of (mostly borrowed) dollars. By the time the last invoice gets paid, the total will be in the trillions. Is the money being well spent? Are we getting good value? Is it possible that some of the largesse showered on U.S. forces trying to pacify Kandahar could be better put to use in helping to rebuild Cleveland? Given the existing terms of the civil-military relationship, even to pose such questions is unseemly. For politicians sending soldiers into battle, generals presiding over long, drawn-out, inconclusive campaigns, and contractors reaping large profits as a consequence, this war-comes-first mentality is exceedingly agreeable.

One wonders how many of those serving in the ranks are taken in by this fraud. The relationship between American people and their military—we love you; do whatever you want—seems to work for everyone. Everyone, that is, except soldiers themselves. They face the prospect of war without foreseeable end.

Americans once believed war to be a great evil. Whenever possible, war was to be avoided. When circumstances made war unavoidable, Americans wanted peace swiftly restored.

Present-day Americans, few of them directly affected by events in Iraq or Afghanistan, find war tolerable. They accept it. Since 9/11, war has become normalcy. Peace has become an entirely theoretical construct. A report of G.I.s getting shot at, maimed, or killed is no longer something the average American gets exercised about. Rest assured that no such reports will interfere with plans for the long weekend that Memorial Day makes possible.

Members of the civil-military-corporate elite find war more than tolerable. Within its ranks, as Chris Hedges has noted, war imparts meaning and excitement to life. It serves as a medium through which ambitions are fulfilled and power is accrued and exercised. In Washington, the benefits offered by war’s continuation easily outweigh any benefits to be gained by ending war. So why bother to try?

As the 10th anniversary of what Americans once called their Global War on Terror approaches, a plausible, realistic blueprint for bringing that enterprise to a conclusion does not exist. Those who might once have felt some responsibility for articulating such a plan—the president, his chief lieutenants, senior military leaders—no longer feel any obligation to do so. As a practical matter, they devote themselves to war’s perpetuation, closing one front while opening another. More strikingly still, we the people allow our leaders to evade this basic responsibility to articulate a plan for peace. By implication, we endorse the unspoken assumption that peace has become implausible.

Here at last we come to the dirty little secret that underlines all the chatter about “supporting the troops.” The people in charge don’t really believe that the burdens borne by our soldiers will ever end and they are not really looking for ways to do so. As for the rest of us, well, we’re OK with that.

Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...its-soldiers/#

[The Reaper]

Bacevich lost his son, and became a hater.

TR

[bailaviborita]

Wasn't he a "hater" before his son died?

I think his main point: that our populace is ambivalent towards us and war in general is an interesting one.

I've always wondered about folks who do the "un-PC" thing. Today it is VERY un-PC to disparage the troops. People hate the war, but love the troops. Although I am very thankful we don't have the Vietnam-era hatred from the populace- I often wonder if this "love of the troops" (or social pressure to "support" them) makes our population less critical of our efforts overseas...?

[nmap]

Originally Posted by Penn

The article reflects the blatant disconnect between society and the military.

I agree - there seems to be a wide gap between career military and civilians in perceptions, in attitudes...perhaps even down to the level of the moral compass. I'm not sure it could be bridged easily.

There is the question of just what "supporting the troops" means. I wonder (in a purely rhetorical sense) how far that support would go if it required substantial inconvenience or cost. I also wonder (again, purely rhetorically) what would happen in a situation such as the bonus marchers ( LINK ) where soldiers were given orders to disperse a crowd. There is, IMO, risk in such disconnects.

[Penn]

In what appears to be unwillingness, powerlessness, or the residue of guilt in the collective American psyche for the treatment of returning RVN Veterans; the American public failure to confront current foreign policy is blameworthy.

For NATO to launch an assault on Libya; which could only be effective with our military support, and to do so under the guise of humanitarian assistance is laughable. Especially, when listening to the deafening silence and outrage over the price of gas. Andrew Bacevich, (partial bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bacevich) voice is desperately needed.

The article reflects the blatant disconnect between society and the military. A careful reading of the article, imho, addresses this issue, and the larger issue of continuing to send good men into harm’s way for unquantifiable goals and ambiguous outcomes. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_526373.html or http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...ican-outburst/

I have come to the conclusion that scraping the Powell Doctrine has become our undoing. The Gulf war illustrates the sensibility of total commitment when going to war. However, the upfront and personal experience of carnage that the highway of death footage brought to American living rooms was too much, and It may also be the juncture where the mass disconnect with our military began; as a way to exonerate the guilty pleasure felt vicariously in the viewing audience. I support the troops, but Jesus Christ man censor that shit!!! Followed by, where to address the check.

In that regard, if you are not going to confront the Taliban head on, which is really the Pashtun majority (Hamid Karzai Tribe) that populates both sides of the Pak/Afgan boarder then it’s time to leave, a policy of attrition is insanity, what’s the point? To sustain a puppet non democratic regime in a region based on fluid purchasable tribal loyalties?

Further, there is little doubt in the profitability of the enterprise, from suppliers to contractors everyone is getting paid...except those bearing the heaviest burden, the soldiers and their families. (a note to follow) I am under no illusion why the expanded charade included Libya: bad boy dictator with oil, Iraq is not too dissimilar, particularly in an era of uncertain supply without alternative energy sources.

Having read a decent amount of his writings I find his arguments pointed and succinct. He gets to the issues with little fan fare. If he has one fault, it’s that he assumes the readership is current, both in FP affairs and his Kissinger-esque approach to FP. He is a realist.

Bacevich cannot be dismissed so readily. His credentials are noteworthy. And, much like this article, he has as far as I am aware, never mentioned his lost while addressing an issue he is concerned with. We may not like what Bacevich has stated, it is after all a difficult reckoning, but reducing his motivation to question policy as the inconsequential distrust of a hater is unreasonable. We should be asking the tough questions of where we are; we need people of Bacevich caliber to inform our understanding, question our commitment and question our leadership, but importantly to question ourselves.

[JJ_BPK]

Originally Posted by bailaviborita

I've always wondered about folks who do the "un-PC" thing.

Today it is VERY un-PC to disparage the troops.

Although I am very thankful we don't have the Vietnam-era hatred from the populace- I often wonder if this "love of the troops" (or social pressure to "support" them) makes our population less critical of our efforts overseas...?

From the vantage point of a FOG who was the receiver of the Viet Nam Baby Killer Award, on several occasions, I have the feeling that the current PC Left's LOVE for the troops is very shallow and transient. It FEELS like they would flip to their old ways in a second.

If you get into a discussion about the troops, they jump in with big smiles and lots of cheering.

If you look at what they actually do.. Nothing...

My K-mart rain gage is my FB wall. I post something about the troops on a regular basis. Not a lot of feedback..

On the flip, if one of the Left post anything anti-war,, there is a pile-on of supporters..

An Admittedly Jaundiced View.

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by Penn

In what appears to be unwillingness, powerlessness, or the residue of guilt in the collective American psyche for the treatment of returning RVN Veterans; the American public failure to confront current foreign policy is blameworthy.

For NATO to launch an assault on Libya; which could only be effective with our military support, and to do so under the guise of humanitarian assistance is laughable. Especially, when listening to the deafening silence and outrage over the price of gas. Andrew Bacevich, (partial bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bacevich) voice is desperately needed.

The article reflects the blatant disconnect between society and the military. A careful reading of the article, imho, addresses this issue, and the larger issue of continuing to send good men into harm’s way for unquantifiable goals and ambiguous outcomes. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_526373.html or http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...ican-outburst/

I have come to the conclusion that scraping the Powell Doctrine has become our undoing. The Gulf war illustrates the sensibility of total commitment when going to war. However, the upfront and personal experience of carnage that the highway of death footage brought to American living rooms was too much, and It may also be the juncture where the mass disconnect with our military began; as a way to exonerate the guilty pleasure felt vicariously in the viewing audience. I support the troops, but Jesus Christ man censor that shit!!! Followed by, where to address the check.

In that regard, if you are not going to confront the Taliban head on, which is really the Pashtun majority (Hamid Karzai Tribe) that populates both sides of the Pak/Afgan boarder then it’s time to leave, a policy of attrition is insanity, what’s the point? To sustain a puppet non democratic regime in a region based on fluid purchasable tribal loyalties?

Further, there is little doubt in the profitability of the enterprise, from suppliers to contractors everyone is getting paid...except those bearing the heaviest burden, the soldiers and their families. (a note to follow) I am under no illusion why the expanded charade included Libya: bad boy dictator with oil, Iraq is not too dissimilar, particularly in an era of uncertain supply without alternative energy sources.

Having read a decent amount of his writings I find his arguments pointed and succinct. He gets to the issues with little fan fare. If he has one fault, it’s that he assumes the readership is current, both in FP affairs and his Kissinger-esque approach to FP. He is a realist.

Bacevich cannot be dismissed so readily. His credentials are noteworthy. And, much like this article, he has as far as I am aware, never mentioned his lost while addressing an issue he is concerned with. We may not like what Bacevich has stated, it is after all a difficult reckoning, but reducing his motivation to question policy as the inconsequential distrust of a hater is unreasonable. We should be asking the tough questions of where we are; we need people of Bacevich caliber to inform our understanding, question our commitment and question our leadership, but importantly to question ourselves.

Excellent post Penn......... Sad to say he does have a point........

Big Teddy

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Penn

For NATO to launch an assault on Libya; which could only be effective with our military support, and to do so under the guise of humanitarian assistance is laughable. Especially, when listening to the deafening silence and outrage over the price of gas. Andrew Bacevich, (partial bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bacevich) voice is desperately needed.

He must be talking about the MSM because I don't one person that likes or understands much of what is going on from the price of gas, Libya, to Obama's encouragement of the friendly Arab uprising dotting globe or much of anything else that has DC's finger prints on it..

To blame it on the society in general is off base, rather the culprit is a small segment of society, Elite's and the MSM (aka PRAVDA US).

[The Reaper]

The average American's understanding of the nature of war is what a Disney kid's understanding of animals and wildlife is.

The Pashtuns are far better educated in that regard.

TR

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

The average American's understanding of the nature of war is what a Disney kid's understanding of animals and wildlife is.

The Pashtuns are far better educated in that regard.

TR

In that respect, we are in 100% agreement....though I feel you might be giving us too much credit.

[Dusty]

Soldiers know when they're getting screwed:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147839/Mi...wer-Marks.aspx

[Richard]

I just returned from the DFW National Cemetery where I spoke with a family who lost their son in A-stan this past year. The mother, holding the rose presented after her son's name had been called during the reading of those lost on AD and interred at DFWNS during the past year (took about 15 minutes), said people have no idea what the military is about until they either serve or have someone serving.

Made me wonder who Airstrip One would be at war with next.

And so it goes...

Richard

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Dusty

Soldiers know when they're getting screwed:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147839/Mi...wer-Marks.aspx

"..............Women who are serving or have served in the military are on a relative basis more positive about Obama than is the case for men who are members of the military or veterans. Female veterans or those in the military between the ages of 30 and 49, for example, are actually slightly more likely to approve of Obama than are nonveteran women in this age group................"


The above statement says a lot more than I want to get into right now.

[SpikedBuck]

Interesting thoughts...I myself am a bit frustrated at the general public at large....even in a miliary town, like Fay, NC. I believe that the general public supports our military out of convenience...(not all, but a good majority). If it doesn't cost them anything, it is "easy" for them to support and encourage. My wife had an interesting experience this year in Fayetteville while I have been deployed...there has been a general sense of the War in Iraq being over, especially with the media coverage of the last patrol (Styker BDE) leaving Iraq. We all watched the news coverage from in country over the next few days and had a general felling of abandonment based on all the media stories. Pissed my Wife off so badly, she wound up talking to the Fay Observer Editor about it at dinner one night. Not sure it did much good...She, herself has felt abandoned during this deployment and I believe a lot of it has to do with the media and general public.

Another fact the general public doesn't realize is the number of American civilians serving in the war zone...actually outnumbering the military. Great Americans all of them to put themselves in harms way, regardless of their motivation. Truly special people.

The general confusion over Memorial Day and Veterans' Day is also dis-heartening, even among our membership. Used to frustrate the hell out of my Dad as well...I believe some of his thoughts about this are already posted.

Dan

[Penn]

To blame it on the society in general is off base, rather the culprit is a small segment of society, Elite's and the MSM

Square for me the culpability of society (voting public, or everyone that can read) with the lack of responsibility that society negates for not demanding from this small group of powerful elites a truthful accounting of the mission. Its lunacy, society is to blame for its silence as there are less than 700 appointed and elected officials who continue to make decisions that affect us all.

Andrew Bacevich is calling into question the arguments that these elites have used to justify sending good men to war. He is also asking the additional questions elites have used to legitimize the expanded role of military force in the region, while at the same time noting the lack of commitment to prosecute the war with determine force.

What is the difference between the ISI relationship with the Taliban Pashtun tribesman’s and Karzai relationship with them? If force is exercised against the Taliban/Pashtun Karzai is threatening to end his relationship with the USA. For Christ sake show him the way to diplomacy with the use of force, or get out. There’s not one liberate Afghani worthy of our effort to justify this ongoing travesty.

The disconnection between society and the military is part and parcel to the unwillingness of society to question the mission. It is much easier to bury their head in the sand then confront a $671 Billion dollar defense package for 2012 while American blood is being spilled. Elites know and use this tactic to reinforce the residual guilt with the jingoistic phrase of “Support the Troops” , but pass the defense bill.

It’s reprehensible how the public is manipulated in this manner, the audacity of political leadership to question a person’s patriotism if he should ask tough questions is spineless and a growing sign of weakness from within.