Real Support of our Military

[OperaTenor]

There is a pervasive sentiment in the U.S. that people who don't support the invasion of Iraq also don't support our military. It's the same mentality that says being in disagreement with the current administration is un-American, unpatriotic.

I believe that is an outright fallacy.

I believe supporting our troops is trying to ensure they don't go into battle without just cause. That if their precious blood is going to be spilled, it's for the right reason.

It's one thing to sacrifice lives in defense of our country, but to send our military into a war of aggression, which we initiated, is a whole different matter. We should make damn sure our ducks are in the right row before we ask these folks to give their lives. To think we're allowing our fellow Americans to die for some hair-brained scheme to acheive global prominence, or, worse, for profit, sickens me.

I think having a volunteer military has desensitized most of us to the gravity of war, so that we are much more flippant about sending our military into harm's way. It's somebody else's children/brother/sister/spouse/parent, so what's the big deal?
We would probably be a lot more gun shy about sending our troops off to war if we knew it was a distinct possibility it would be one of our own who was going to be in the line of fire.

Unfortunately, withdrawing from Iraq now would create more problems than it would solve: In my opinion, we have to see it through. Even so, we still need to do a better job. More troops, better planning, and every tool available to do the job right.

One aspect in particular really sticks in my craw: Contractors. The military was able to take care of all of its needs for over 200 years, why muck it up with a bunch of leeches? These contractors cost us as taxpayers far more than leaving it to the military to see to, take much more coordination, far more complex, and they're basically a bunch of mercenaries who don't have a mission beyond their self interest and bottom line.

From my personal perspective, I generally trusted a fellow member of the crew with my life. I would never do that with a contractor.

The military would be much better served if we gave them what they needed, and let them take care of the whole job.

<small>[ 06-02-2005, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[barfle]

I certainly agree with you about what "supporting our troops" means, but you seemed to imply that a draft, putting the wealthier classes in line for combat duty, might be a way to insure that frivolous wars would not be fought.

I was drafted, and while I had been indoctrinated to feel that military service was my duty, I did everything I could except my homework to avoid being told what to wear and who I had to give a special wave to. And I've noted several times that I feel much of the time I spent in uniform was a waste of my time and everyone else's money. The idea of a professional military force is one that cheers the cockles of my libertarian heart. If someone joins the military because they feel it's the right thing to do, or simply because they think that's the best job they can get makes no difference. They will be professionals, doing the job to the best of their ability, and not simply trying to fly below the radar as I did. I'm undecided about calling up the reserves for extended periods of time, and that's a topic for another discussion and exploration.

And I also disagree about the use of contractors. One thing I remember quite well about being in the military was KP. While it seemed to have been administered fairly, it was also a royal pain, and all by itself would have been reason enough to avoid putting any more time in uniform than was required under threat of imprisonment. Today, those support jobs are being done by people who are doing them, not as punishment or taking your turn in the crap pile, but as regular employees of the contractor. The efforts of the uniformed services are going to the foot soldier, not to the logistics. While there may well be some ways the contractors could improve their service to the troops, I know full well that someone who is stuck doing a job they don't like (like being on KP) isn't going to wash my tray as well as one who has signed up for that job.

The intent of all this is to make being a foot soldier into a more attractive job. One thing I recall about being a soldier is that I thought the conditions sucked. While I doubt there's much you can do about berth space on a submarine, living in barracks really isn't a lifestyle I wanted to cultivate. Not that I think the troops are being coddled, but the main reason I'm a civilian is because I did not like the job of soldiering.

[OperaTenor]

I was afraid that implication would be assumed. Don't really mean it that way, just noting the apparent situation. I don't know what the answer to the ambivalence toward the sanctity of human life is, but I'm loth to promote conscription as the solution.

I understand what you're saying when it comes to the $hit jobs. Nevertheless, when it comes to crunch time, I wouldn't trust a merc with my life.

I guess my preference is to have a professional, standing military, and not have to rely on reserves. What is currently happening to our reservists is unfair, personally and professionally. I for one, am willing to shell out the tax money to make it happen. Our military deserves adequate compensation for their willingness to sacrifice.

[Shapley]

OT,

You do realize that:

1) Constitutionally, we are not allowed to maintain a professional, standing army, except in time of war,

and 2) That is the terms of the reservists obligation. Personally, I'm glad I didn't remain in the reserves, but during my time in them, I was fully aware of the responsibility it carried.

I agree with Barfle on the use of contractors. It's really not a new concept, and it does work. I really don't know what makes you think a contractor will be less committed to the cause, or to his comrades, than a soldier. I've known sailors good and bad, and contractors good and bad, in my life, and I really can't say there are any higher percentage of either in either occupation.

V/R
Shapley

[Haggis@wk]

OT, Just for you,

THE SILENT SERVICE SPEAKS

"My reactor has a first name,
It's N-A-V-A-L;
My reactor has a second name,
It's classified as hell;
Oh, I love to scram it everyday,
And if you ask me why, I'll sa-a-a-ay...
'Cause radiation has a way of messing up your DNA."


A group of silent service vets, engineers, and enthusiasts have banded together on one blog to write about submarine news, life, and events.

[piqaboo]

originally posted by Shapley:
Constitutionally, we are not allowed to maintain a professional, standing army, except in time of war,

and yet, we do. And have for a long time. And I cant see that changing. Ever.
"Professional" means paid.

<small>[ 06-06-2005, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: piqaboo ]</small>

[Shapley]

Piq,

We have, ever since 1948, when we replaced the War Department with the Department of Defense, under the guise of a "cold war". i.e., when WWII ended, we continued to maintain the military appropriations under the pretense that we were still at war, exept that the war was cold. When the cold war ended, as a result of the Pax Reagana. Bush I began dismantling the standing army, returning us to a "ready reserve", as the Constitution requires.

In this day of nuclear readiness, it is not preferable to have nuclear weapons in the hands of the fifty states' Governors, so there will be at least a sufficient force to maintain them for the forseeable future, unless they are assigned to the Navy.

BTW, the first people to circumvent the prohibition on the standing army was the founding fathers themselves, wo created the Marine Corps, as a professional "army" placed under the control of the Navy, which is Constitutionally maintained in war and peace.

V/R
Shapley

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Haggis, you're very bad. You've damaged my reputation for dignity and professionalism.

Not to mention that I'm dealing with coffee up my nose and down in the keyboard...

That's a great theme song.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Question: If we're not supposed to have a standing military, why did the founding fathers found Annapolis and West Point?

[Haggis@wk]

Selma,
Isn't that a hoot? I wonder if OT's seen it before.

RE: the academies, the "foundings" didn't. West Point was founded in 1802 and Annapolis in 1845.

Answers.com

”The United States established a standing army modeled on the British regulars, first in the Continental army of the revolutionary war, growing out of legislation of the Second Continental Congress of June 14, 1775. This army was almost completely disbanded by the Confederation Congress on June 2, 1784, but the next day Congress authorized the creation of a new, albeit small force that the government of the Constitution inherited in 1789 and that became the nucleus of the Regular Army. The United States also accepted the compulsory-service militia legacy, particularly with the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which went into effect in 1791.

For defense against foreign enemies, it was intended that the militia would be mobilized to reinforce the Regular Army, which remained small throughout the nineteenth century; it numbered fewer than twenty-five thousand as late as the eve of the Spanish-American War of 1898. Much of the time, however, Americans perceived the Regular Army and the militia less as complementing each other than as rivals. ”

I don’t think there was ever a serious attempt to not have a standing army, albeit small, for the simple reason there has pretty much always been a need for such a force from “hostile Indians” to pesky, Mexican bandits.

Consider that until 1939 the U.S. Army and Navy military primary function was constabulary in nature

[OperaTenor]

Hi Haggis,

I hadn't seen that one before, TG I wasn't drinking anything when I read it. And thanks for the link to the blog. Looks like great reading material.

Whether the Constitution provided for it or not, we have a standing professional military, and we should take the best care of them we can. That includes keeping them out of harm's way unless absolutely necessary, and pay them what they're really worth.

Haggis, wouldn't you say we have need of something more than "constabulary function" from our military in this day and age, even if we we're at war?

[Haggis@wk]

"Haggis, wouldn't you say we have need of something more than "constabulary function" from our military in this day and age, even if we we're at war?'

Not sure what you mean, I was just pointing out that until War 2 forced them onto the internatonal stage our military functioned as national cops.

I certainly agree that times and needs have changed the role and function of the military.

For instance, the USAF is smaller now than in any time in its history (since 1947) even though the roles and responsibilities it has undertaken are enormous.

I'm sure the Army has also shrunk, but I'm not familiar with its historical size.

[Shapley]

Haggis,

Wasn't the "constabulary function" only related to policing the territories that were not yet states? It would seem that, Constitutionally, the constabulary function would be the responsibility of the State, once a territory had become one.

The Constitution does not limit the Navy, indeed it mandates it's existence. For this reason, the Marines were placed under their auspices, in order to not have to re-appropriate their finances every two years. The raising of armies is only authorized during war time, although I'm sure the Indian wars would have qualified.

I would expect that some form of War College would be needed in order to ensure that the army, when raised, was under the command of qualified leadership. Similarly, a regular leadership component would be required in order not to have to "reinvent the wheel" everytime the army is raised.

The National Guard is a regular component of the militia, although that definition has been bastardized by the marriage of the National Guard (State's responsibility) and the Army Reserve (Federal reserve).

That portion of Section 8 of the Constitution, dealing with the military and the militia, reads:

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

V/R
Shapley

[Shapley]

Haggis,

RE: the Air Force.

Unfortunately, the Air Force is sort of a bastard child. During the Great War and the World War, they were a part of the Army. In 1947, they were given their own identity and mission. However, not being Constitutionally defined, they are subject to the whims and fancies of Congress.

There is no doubt they are every bit as important as a Navy, as it is equally as important to keep the "air lanes" open is it is the "sea lanes". However, we need a Constitutional Amendment to define them, or place them under the Naval authority, if they are to have Constitutionally defined place of permanence.

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

Hi Haggis,

Sorry, that was supposed to be "even if we weren't at war?".

That's okay, I just fired my proofreader.......

Shap, guess that explains why Air Force personnel get treated so much better than the other forces.

:p

[Shapley]

OT,

It could be because they don't have two hundred years' of tradition to live up to...

or down to.

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

Altoid's on notice that IF (and that's a huge "if") she joins any branch of the military, especially as an enlisted, it will be the Air Force, and only the Air Force.

Jim "the grass is greener up in the air" B.

<small>[ 06-06-2005, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Like any child of OT's is likely to listen to her old dad on the subject. Piffle, she'll say!

[Shapley]

OT,

If you hadn't volunteered to spend your time on an overcrowded bucket that sinks on purpose, you might have found life in the Navy not to be all that bad.

I really did get to see the world.

And it really is 3/4 water!

Shapley "from a long line of sailors" Hunter

[haggis]

"Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

That's why appropriations are yearly