Editorial with some valid points .
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/opinion/americans-and-their-military-drifting-apart.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&

 

I share some of these concerns, they are legit.

But mitigating factors...

The officer corps has always been a different caste whether made up of educated elite, or the children, grandchildren, etc of officers. I suspect they were more insular in past when most everyone lived on base...now at least the majority of officers tend to live out in town. Also modern communications and social media mechanisms keep us all in closer touch, whether we want to be or not...after being deployed for 20 years it wasn't much of a leap for a Roman legion to come home and cross the Rubicon.

But most of the officers came in with some ideals and still have a connection with the people because they all know their service is temporary...they can't stay in forever unless they are promoted to O-9/O-10. I would be somewhat concerned if we modify the retirement system to eliminate the 20-year pension and subsequently let most folks stay in to age 60+...then you would create a civil-service like organization which would be primarily self-serving (google "IRS scandal" for more details). It would also be far less dynamic as it gets clogged with older, set-in-their-ways people.

As a product of the professional military system, I'm very leery of a draft just for the sake of having a draft. 30 years ago we could take almost anyone without physical or mental impairments and whip them into shape, but now days with all the touchy-feely sensitivity crap there's no way you could force someone to play whose heart was not in to begin with.

The reserves are actually a great counter-balance to this concern...as long as they are utilized enough so that the active duty gets to know and trust them they can serve as a liaison between America and it's military.

But grain of salt...this is a NY Times article. I have some lingering (and growing suspicion) that some people in the government would prefer to dilute not only the size and capability of the military but also it's character...right now it is probably the only component of the federal government which could (if push came to shove) be relied upon to stand by the people rather than those shoveling slop into the federal trough. For all this talk of an insular military, the vast majority of the triggers pullers are junior enlisted....first or second term types who retain close ties with the hometown they came from, and are not planning on a military career.

No, this is not a conspiracy theory, I don't think anyone is planning anything it's just the natural progression as we drift towards a socialist nanny-state...eventually the nanny could morph into Big Brother.

 

More of the usual "it's the poor who cannot hack it in real life who join" rubbish. All three of my kids elected to serve when they could have gone to just about any school and pursued a civilian career.

It further insinuates that it is the lower ranks who suffer, while the officers sit in air conditioned shacks, sipping lattes and communicating via SATCOM. Maybe the O-5's and up do, but the lieutenants and captains are in the thick of it, leading from the front in many cases.

What the author needed to emphasize was the pathetic lack of mission focus. Afghanistan should have been over in a year. Overwhelming force, destruction and ejection of the Taliban and Al Quaeda; then, get out. Let it be known to them - "See how easily we crushed your forces? Behave yourselves. Export violence again, and we will return to do it once more."

Instead, we build schools, clinics, conduct shuras with village elders and goat herders, and bleed a torrent of cash into a social construct that will not last.

Ultimately, the military enforces political decisions drafted by civilians in Washington. It does not do this on its own.

 

Yeah, the military was not in the business of nation-building when we invaded AF and IZ, and had to learn fast and improvise. That should probably not be a military mission in most situations.

 

I thought this line from the article was telling in the thought of the author and goes in line with what you said above FO:
The armed forces don't need to rethink their missions; the leadership of the country needs to rethink their use of military force. The Armed Forces are *thinking* (and planning and executing) their missions just fine.

 

Staller should read this, especially the comments. I totally agree with Gen. Eikenberry. He is a true American Patriot.

 

Its about 50% truth and 50% horse****

 

What is the horse****?

 

So the fact that this was published in the NY Times automatically makes you take this with a grain of salt? First of all, this is not an article by a NY Times reporter. This is a guest opinion piece by a retired General. The only editing in guest opinion pieces are for grammar and syntax. Whether the trendy opinion that the NY Times is a "liberal pinko rag" is true or not has nothing to do with this piece.

"drift towards a socialist nanny-state"? Sure sounds conspiratorial to me. But I digress.

 

How many of you while watching a talking head interview a high ranking member of the military wish that they would be asked the tough questions ?
I remember watching one such member who had retired and it was just softball all the way around and I,m thinking
-Why the hell don't you ask your guest about the Rules of Engagement that our troops are under and if that is partly responsible for the high casualty rate .
MacArthur was so correct in what he said in his farewell speech.