Four Star Arrogance and civilian authority
 

The article was written by Dr. Andrew Bacevich. (Boston University bio.) I value his writing and think his POV is important; also it should be be noted that his Son was Killed in Iraq in 2005, but I have some reservation that it altered his position regarding the use of force, or PMI's.

The article contains a link to an online discussion concerning his POV.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...=nl_pmheadline

This has lead to a lot of cheap, flag waving, sleep in a clean bed, patriots. There is no longer any risk of ones own blood being spilled when you support a war. You just pay your taxes and let somebody else's son go and die and meanwhile you complain fulltime about paying the taxes. Obviously not a fan of the all volunteer army. There should be a provision for mandatory national service of some kind and during protracted wars that should convert to a draft.

I would say that the guy might not be correct about the recent emergence lack of respect between the military and civilian leaders and how far down in the ranks this goes. Things were pretty bad in the closing days of RVN and you were safer out in the bush than in the rear.


Along with his principle discussion goes the warning of Eisenhower (I think) about the growing might of the industrial military complex.

The problem with the draft.....
 

A private would get the same training if he was drafted or enlisted.

The problem with the draft is not the 98% that would be drafted, serve with honor and be discharged.

The problem would be with the 2% that flat out don't want to be there. They would eat up more CoC time then they would be worth.

Plus the left would love to bring back the draft. Because it means more civil unrest, college protests, burnng of draft cards, sit ins, etc, etc, etc.

Sometime ago, Thomas Friedman stated in a New York Times
Op-ED article, that when he thought of the sacrifices made by those in the Military and that of their families, that America did not deserve them.

He was appalled that the public was oblivious to the hardship and selflessness of those in uniform, that the public was more concerned with various sport season’s, then the hardships required in service to one's country.

Is it surprising then, as noted by Friedman, when he witnessed the cultural disconnect, that distain for inept political leadership would be the natural end result for a superbly trained and discipline army?

Though, I do not have the evidence to support this next comment, I think there is a correlation, with regard Dr. Bacevich article, Friedman’s observation, and the fear that was recently expressed by the current administration, via the chief of homeland security, concerning the of return of war Veterans, and the threat they supposedly posed.

Although, I can image civil unrest due to the continual abuse of the America taxpayer, I do not see a Coup de tête initiated by our Military; it is quite frankly, inconceivable.

However, I did buy more ammo yesterday.

In my opinion, as a scruffy civilian in good standing, many of the civilian leaders I observe do not inspire my confidence or other positive reactions. In contrast, a substantial number of military leaders do inspire both confidence and positive reactions.

If any substantial number among the citizenry share such attitudes, it might be best if the less capable civilian leaders pulled up their figurative socks. I shall not hold my breath until that happens.

Bacevich is a brilliant guy with a huge axe to grind.

TR

Actually, I find this guy to be out of touch. The soldiers going to battle are a mixture of "the standing army" and the National Guard and Reserves. These guys and gals are better trained and motivated than any army in two generations. The populace has a direct link to the war effort. Few people don't know someone who has a family member who has served there or will.

This isn't about the professionalism of the volunteer force, it's about a hotshot JSOC guy who doesn't think much of anyone who hasn't come out of JSOC. They don't like the rest of the military. As a matter of fact, they don't particularly think much of anything outside their gates. As one friend of mine told me, agreeing with what I'd said previously in that conversation "Yeah, those bastards are thick as thieves. They'll lie to your face, even when you're on the same side."

There are problems in the force. There have been too many deployments that have been wasted by both political stripes. We should have been out of there already, but that's going to come, win or lose. The force is tired. I've heard folks whom I respect say that there's going to be a breaking point somewhere. But to say that the force is disconnected from the populace just doesn't hold water for me.

McC wasn't connected to the populace, nor was he particularly tied to big army. He was a bomb waiting to go off IMO.

While Professor Bacevich's op ed piece raises important questions about the state of civil military relations today, his understanding of the past leaves a lot to be desired.

My $0.02.

Not to mention that the Military has always found it within itself to soldier on despite the (not so) occasional bouts of thoroughly contemptable civilian leadership. Something about "uphold and defend" IIRC.

I think he understands it, he just disregards whatever does not fit into his theories.

TR

AMEN!!! Yet another benefit is a common sense of purpose thus helping to unify our nation. And others.....discipline, reduction in crime, improved work ethic, etc....

I bet that an "unwilling civie" will all of a sudden become willing when he's getting shot at. (Yes, I said he - I'm not a proponent of women in combat).

Carter was viewed with a considerable amount of contempt and we weren't at war. I do believe there is a disconnect with the general population. Most people may know someone who has a family member deployed, but the majority have no investment in the war anymore. Over the years, the outrage of 9/11 has worn off for many. In order to find news about what is going on in Afghanastan or Iraq, you have to find alternate sources. For the most part, the news is more concerned with the anniversary of Michael Jackson's death, some movie star getting arrested or the problems the Tea Party is causing Obama. It seems there is a core of the population that still maintains a concern with the daily activities of the military, the casualties and the well being of the service members. These are people that have some kind of link to it, a family member deployed, ex-service members, someone close to them is active duty or they have been touched by someone in another way.

I have always thought that we should have some kind of mandatory service. An Israel model of serving for at least a couple of years may be sufficient. That would at least ensure that the majority of the population was vested in what the military did or did not do. It might also ensure we did not have a Commander in Chief who was clueless.

After reading the Rolling Stone article I was given the impression that Gen. McChrystal and his staff were being exceedingly arrogant, but when you combine that with an administration that is argueably deserving of that contempt, it is a no win situation.

They wouldn't be 'civvies' if they were drafted and sent to Basic and Advanced training before deployment, would they?

Since I'm a FOG, I can remember when this was the norm. More than a few performed pretty well in combat in RVN, Korea, WWII, etc. Some are even on this site!

If we did have some type of national service with a military option, perhaps there should be 'tiers' in the military, with conscripts limited to various types of support tasks, with lower tiered pay scale. If they want the 'real jobs' and full pay and 'bennies' - they have to enlist for a longer term. (We could get rid of a lot of contractors!)

Just a thought.