"Time" Magazine's "Person of the Year&qu

[haggis]

<img src="http://home1.gte.net/res0cuod/images/cover_thumb.jpg" alt=" - " />

Words would be superfluous

[shostakovich]

Good choice on Time's part. It reminds me of an article I read today claiming that support for the war has never been lower than 50% among Americans. It would be interesting to know how the question was put in such polls. I don't believe support for the WAR is that high. Support for the TROOPS is probably pretty solid, though.
Shos

[dai bread]

I can't get the photo up at present. Was it an American G.I?

[haggis]

Dai, the "person of the year" is the American soldier

[barfle]

Although I never saw combat, I did spend a lot of time away from my family and friends as a member of the armed forces, as I'm sure Haggis, OT, and others have. Although I expect most GIs knew the risks of joining the military, they did so freely and some of them have made the "ultimate sacrifice." Even those who are physically unscathed have been through enough to warrant this recognition.

dai, the picture is the cover of Time Magazine, announcing the "Person of the Year" as being all the members of the US Armed Forces.

Personally, I hope they all come home safe and soon. I support the troops, although I do not necessarily support all aspects of their leader's "mission."

[EJA]

I was likewise pleasantly surprised with Time's choice.

[haggis]

FYI, this is not a first. "Times" "person of the year" in 1950 was "G.I. Joe"


<img src="http://home1.gte.net/res0cuod/images/time1950.jpg" alt=" - " />

[piqaboo]

Originally posted by barfle:
Personally, I hope they all come home safe and soon. I support the troops, although I do not necessarily support all aspects of their leader's "mission."

Yes. Well said.

[haggis]

” Although I never saw combat, I did spend a lot of time away from my family and friends as a member of the armed forces, as I'm sure Haggis, OT, and others have.’

Barfle raises an important point. Only a slender percentage of the U.S. Military have the unfortunate distinction of being in combat. It takes a long wide logistics and support tail to keep the few “teeth” in the fray. I spent 28+ years and didn’t see anything that could be defined as “combat” until the Gulf War in 91 and in Somalia after that and that was 24 years into my career.

Nevertheless, the number of people involved to support me in those locations was enormous. And they suffered the same deprivations and hardships as I or any one else did; missed Christmases, anniversaries, birthdays and births.

In Somalia we had large military presences in Kenya, Addis Ababa, Egypt, Yemen (for a short while) and Spain. All dedicated primarily to the support of the U.S. military operations in Somalia. And that doesn’t include the “air lifters” and all the support they required.

The “logistic dance” challenge to put airplanes on the ground, unload them and get them off again is enormous. Most Americans have no idea of the difficulties of putting the right airplanes on the ground somewhere like Somalia when there was no fuel available and only one C-141 or C-5 could be on the ground at once.

But I digress, any G.I. anywhere deserves your respect and gratitude even though it frequently embarrasses them when someone says that to them. These young men and women join the military for a number of reasons, but the ones that stay do so because they believe that what they do is important. And it is.

[shostakovich]

Is it my imagination, or does the G.I. on the 1950 Time look like a young Wesley Clark? Actually, it's likely a painted or inked generic G.I. I'm just
Curious.

<small>[ 12-22-2003, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: shostakovich ]</small>

[Marye]

Hi Shos... it does look like Wesley Clark...Clark's appearance is an oddity to me..grey head, no wrinkles, tired eyes...small head on overly broad shoulders, clothing hangs but his teeth are brililantly white and even...

I don't know whether he is handsome or just strange to look at.

[dai bread]

I saw the picture in this morning's paper. For once, I am in complete agreement with "Time". Well done!

[audiogirl]

Originally posted by shostakovich:
Is it my imagination, or does the G.I. on the 1950 Time look like a young Wesley Clark? Actually, it's likely a painted or inked generic G.I. I'm just
Curious.

It looks almost exactly like the actor who played Margaret's sometime love on M*A*S*H--"Scully."

[haggis]

AGirl,

Ya think? I dunno, it is close. I link, you decide

<img src="http://home1.gte.net/res0cuod/images/scully.bmp" alt=" - " />

[bigcat4jesus]

To bring this back to topic; I heard a politically-intentioned friend of mine this weekend say that there is "no harm to our soldiers when we voice opposition to the actions they are forced to committ".

This is an irresponsible attitude. From Alexander to Julius Caesar to Napoleon to Patton to Schwarzkopf, all military leaders will tell you that poor morale is the greatest internal enemy any force can face. And poor morale starts at home. If you can no longer convince a travelling army that the people at home support it, you have lost the war.

So, if opposition to the war is worth the sacrifice of American lives in order to acheive the ends, then by all means oppose it. And embrace the cost in lives of your fellow countrymen.

But, if our aim is to spare as much American bloodshed as possible, then let those of us who oppose the effort resist in silence that they might see (and perhaps then educate) their military brothers and sisters when the conflict ends.

[Nicole Marie]

Augstine-

You are joining this conversation a bit late. We had an earlier topic on this awhile back (I think this was touched on in the Jessica Lynch posting). For those that are against the war, it's just that, against the war not the troops. I come from a large military family and I am against the war. Sure Saddam was a bad guy, he had to go but this was not a burden the US should have carried alone. And most people I have spoken with who are opposed to the war understand support for the troops is different from the war itself.

Since I am from a military family I can see first hand the state of some of the troops. Moral is down and it's not because of lack of love from those of us back home. Some units were pulled out of Iraq and shortly after getting home they were called back. US military rules state that troops get one year off before being called back. That rule was not followed for some units. There are also units that were told they would be back at such and such a date. Family finances, family planning, careers at home, college etc are built around these return dates and when units are told those dates will not hold, families must then readjust. Being in a military family is not easy, but it would be easier if the government was a bit more direct with the units. I see first hand the decline of moral because of the issues I've stated and not due to lack of support here at home.

<small>[ 01-05-2004, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Nicole Marie ]</small>

[haggis]

Nicole

"US military rules state that troops get one year off before being called back"

That's always been more of a philosophy than a rule mainly because its hard to project troop needs and balance requirements with commitments.

Yes, morale is a problem but now as opposed to the period following Vietnam, it’s mostly a transitory problem and, in my opinion, not a deep-rooted issue that will seriously degrade retention as the “hollow force” did in the early ‘70s.

While to some extent the morale problems exist within the regular military units, its mostly apparent in the Guard and Reserve units who’ve been on extended or repeated deployments or backfills.

Please understand, I’m not making light of the problem. I have a very good friend who went from an annual income of $150K as a semi-conductor design engineer to approx. $65K as a C-130 pilot, a helluva cut in pay and a serious hardship to him and his family.

Unfortunately, (in my opinion) in the past 20 years we have push so much of our unique military capabilities onto our Guard and Reserve units as cost cutting measures that when we need those capabilities, the Guard and reserve unit suffered disproportionately. For instance, more than 50% of our heavy airlift capacity (C-5s, C-141’s C-130s and C-17s) is handled by reserve units. Another example, combat medical services and evacuation is almost totally provided by reserve units.

I suspect the U.S. military commitments made in the ’50 and ‘60s and ‘70s will continue to strain a military force that has declined significantly in numbers since those years.

The USAF began in 1948 with active duty strength of 387K, peaking at 909K in 1968 (I joined in 1967, so I’m an example of “they’ll take anyone breathing” philosophy) and then declined to this day with an active duty strength of 359K, less than the new USAF began with.

The numbers are similar for the Army and the Navy (the Marines…. well, they are always “the Marines”)

Beginning with the first Gulf War until today, the deployments have increased dramatically and there is little chance of a decline for the immediate future.

I spent 28 years in the USAF and in the last five years (1990 – 1995) I was deployed and TDY more than the preceding 23 years combined.

The solution? Well, we can quit sending people or we can increase the size of our forces. Personally, I'm for expanding our military but I suspect that Nicole and I would disagree on the solution here

[Nicole Marie]

Hi Haggis-

I don't think there is an easy solution on this one. Expanding the military is one but given it's voluntary that may be tough to do. I'd vote for expanding the military as long as the inflated price did not go with it. What I mean is, I worked one summer as a supply tech for the CT National Guard. My job was to place the orders for the units in the state. All I did was punch in codes, place orders and check to see if the order was complete. I never saw price tags until one day a coworker showed me a list of prices for the items I placed. Wow! It's amazing. The military can spend $3.27 on one nut when I can run down to Home Depot and pick it up for $.05. I know government contracts factor in but as a tax payer I get pretty ticked when I think of the abuse that went on with my tax dollars.

So Haggis expand the military sure, but keep the cost reasonable.

[barfle]

The only reason to expand the military is that you intend to use them more. As a drafted veteran, I can attest to what involuntary service can do to morale, and I had it pretty easy, all things considered. At that time, we were expanding the military because of our involvement in that little southeast Asian civil war. Today, we seem to be picking plenty of other fights in Asia.

I'll agree that Saddam was a vicious tyrant, but I disagree that he had to go. Whether we liked him or not, he was a stabilizing influence in the area, and the closest thing to a secular government anywhere nearby.

There's a big difference between fighting for a cause you believe in, and fighting for one you're told is "your duty." While I have a high sense of duty, I am in the camp that says the invasion of Iraq was not the US's "duty." Many troops have adopted the attitude that they have to do what they have to do, and they damn well better be enthusiastic about it. I was the same way when I was in, and on reflection years later, I know that it was simply a mental defense against doing something guaranteed stupid, like going AWOL.

If we want to improve morale, I suggest we limit our involvement to situations where the term "defense" is descriptive. While that may well include retaliation (ala our fight with the Taliban), it doesn't include situations where there is no threat to the US.

[haggis]

I ran across the following in my daily reads and thought it was worthy of comment here in light of recent posts.

I urge everyone to contact their congressional and senate representatives and asked their opinons about the war in Iraq and to give them your opinions. I certainly have.