Slipstream
There is a story. I forget its exact nature, terms and attribution, but none of that really matters much. Arrange it as you like. In the version I recall "Gladstone" and "Disraeli", British politicians of a previous century, are at a military review amid pomp and circumstance. A rifle salute is fired for the dignitaries. Gladstone who has been talking to someone and not paying attention to the program whirls around at the sound of gunfire, looks over at Disraeli. "My God", he exclaims, "They missed him." What brought this to mind was the suicide bombing at Bagram AFB while VP Cheney was there
U.S. Base in Afghanistan Targeted During Cheney Visit - washingtonpost.com. Bagram is a pretty big place five to six square miles nearly the size of my home town back in Massachusetts. Still plenty in the commentarial chimed in that this was "Surviving" an "Assassination" attempt. Some thought this was unfortunate, others thought that ugly and churlish. Commentary and reaction from the muddy side of the playground where all the 4th graders hang
Glenn Greenwald - A hallmark of idiocy - Salon. For the Vice President's team it was a hard call between something that could make him look more Reagan-esque than ever, vs. downplaying the enemies capabilities
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Taleban attack during Cheney trip. In the end that won out, it was no assassination attempt. Just 14 more dead, one more U S soldier and one more South Korean soldier
Bombing Near Cheney Displays Boldness of Resurgent Taliban - washingtonpost.com. I looked up Bagram AFB read up about it
Bagram Air Base - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Launched Google Earth and took a look at it. What I found myself looking at and thinking about were B-Huts and the Majority Housing Options (MHO)
Bagram Airbase. The latter mil-spec speak for a 16 man tent, The former a fancier 8 man frame canvas housing unit. The modern equivalent of a quonset hut. We have four or more thousand people living in these things at Bagram. They could build barracks maybe, but no they can't; because the keyword is non permanence. The language and lie of the GWOT. The reality is we aren't going anywhere for a very long time. They call the Iraq and Afghanistan wars "small", but they are long and spread out wars. Call them long tail wars. When you have an active theater and have run sizable populations through periods of living in places like Bagram. You have something which rises to a culturally significant level. Within the community of interest, and outside it. This will be with the US military for a generation or more. It will shape it and color its views. This is a tale of two populations. The military, distributed in field deployments across the globe. And the civilian public, not materially affected, barely aware let alone concerned. The Vice President forms a useful case study for this population. From his draft deferring days during the Vietnam war: Dick 'I have betters things to do' Cheney. To his current incarnation as Dick 'triumph of the will' Cheney. Which is only half of his persona matched up as it is with Dick 'I'm not listening to you' Cheney. What is "will power" signifying here. I'm not absolutely sure I understand (more than just a song by the Replacements). It is not merely the opposite of the lack of resolve he believes the Democrats in congress are exhibiting when they question sending more money and more lives into a war that is not advancing America's interests or national security, and could shortly be greatly damaging to both
US commanders admit: we face a Vietnam-style collapse | Iraq | Guardian Unlimited. Especially his hysterical criticism of Nancy Pelosi against whom he levels a fifth column calumny that she is doing al Qaidas work for them. If you have nothing on the line, if you are sacrificing nothing -- prepared to sacrifice nothing personally. You are exhibiting no demonstration of will. Nor are you demonstrating courage or leadership by merely bucking public opinion, if you declare that public opinion has no validity in macro or micro and you are simply going to ignore it. You are only a null set, nothing. The Vice Presidents exhortations to will power resembles nothing so much as they do the shame spirals of the lost. The Vice President aligns most closely with elites who frankly see no need for public involvement in foreign affairs, even wars. Yet the political leadership know that a favorable public attitude is necessary for the freedom of action to carry out overt foreign policy. One component of a protracted struggle is a genuine sense of shared sacrifice. Without it you have drafting - aerodynamic drafting as in a bicycle or car race where one slides into the slipstream of another racer running with reduced effort behind someone who is opening the way
Drafting (racing) - Wikipedia, . This is the free rider problem, the Commons Tragedy with its inevitable misuse, overuse, and destruction of resources.
What the volunteer military gives the nation's civilian leadership is high quality personnel, responsive, and educated (although there has been pressure on the standards recently that in time would affect this). In return the military and it's members like to feel useful, revered, and needed. A rate of pay that moves them out of mills and Walmarts at the start, and offers the possibility of a real career if they stay. My own experience with the All Volunteer Military is that it can and should be able to function on the strength of duty, professionalism, and honor alone. An ordinary heroism not needing a pedestal. There is the emotional need for the nature of the experience and sacrifice, the reality of the mission - the story - to be known. This is inextricably intertwined with a necessary degree of anonymity, isolation, a place apart to do the work of a soldier or sailor. A year ago the selective service (Selective Service System - Wikipedia) initiated a study on mobilization needs:
Selective Service Studied Rapid-Fire Draft Plan - by Eric Rosenberg. The sort of mobilization needs that would occur if carefully managed small wars blossomed into unmanageable regional wars. An 193 day mobilization was thought inadequate. They considered a thirteen day 500,000 man "Emergency Mobilization", it would plainly require the selective service be authorized to initiate a draft. It was deemed politically unfeasible and dropped before it could even attract any curious attention. In January of this year a Harris poll was conducted on opinions concerning a draft
Americans Reject Return of Military Draft: Angus Reid Global Monitor. Charles Rangle had brought the idea up last year. Nancy Pelosi had moved quickly to put a frame on that notion: "It's not about a draft; it's about shared sacrifice in our country. (Pushing for a draft is) a way to make a point that (the Iraq) war has not involved or made any shared sacrifice." The general tone of the survey is that most American are content with a volunteer military they are not in (73%). This sense of the value of national service becomes less negative when a one or more avenues of non-military national service are considered.
When would a draft would be better for the country then leaving it up to volunteers? For the immediate practicality of cohesion and motivation the leadership think never. I think that it might be better when it is possible to see clear differences among those in service and those not; in terms of their values, opinions, and attitudes across a wide array of cultural topics. This is a matter of statistical significance. A survey ought to be designed, and data collected and analyzed. If the result ever shows you have two distribution curves, that military and civilian communities represent two distinct populations action should be taken. The policy may recruiting policies emphasis and marginal adjustments. When and where you recruit, deliberately trying to bring in a wider array of Americans. It may entail broader policies and national goals by national political leaders. And if it needs to it ought to include a draft for national service.
11:44:21 PM  ;;
|
|
