previous post next post  

Fight! Fight!

By The Armorer on July 5, 2006 | | Comments (8)

Well, such as there is at the Castle. Knowing that a lot of you *don't* go burrowing through the comments, I thought I'd bring a conversation from the comments up into the light.

The post that generated the commentary was this one, on Supporting the Troops.

The discussion revolved around perceptions of right wing vs left wing support for the war and the manifestations thereof - along with some side commentary about political assumptions being made about the political leanings of the soldiery. I'm going to leave that aside and will bring up here the discussion between Castle Contrarian and Leftish Canadian Alan of GenX@40 and our own rightish buried-in-the-academy Ry, currently guest-posting at Kat's place, The Middle Ground.

Alan starts out:

To be fair, there are a lot of right winger civilians who do not exactly care deeply about the lot of the military either, asking it to do far more without the civilian side of the community pulling its weight behind the effort in the war on terror through increased taxes, bonds, etc. You see some community outreach in a town like Watertown, NY near me as Fort Drum is so close but you might find a greater national effort might also find that soldier feeling less like no one cared.

Ry Responds:


The points Alan and SD are making are exactly why I have tried(proll'y in vain, knowing me) to not make my essays on the subject over at Kat's a partisan issue. Rogers did, in the end he really did because it comes down to getting the people in power now instead of looking at how the system is messed up. [Armorer's note - "Rogers" refers to another comment thread on a different post that you don't have to be read in on to follow this discussion]

People do tend to just put up the yellow sticker and think the jobs done. It ain't. Not by a long shot. These same jokers did the same in '91(and voted for Bush the Elder in 1992), but by '94 wanted Slick Walrus(having voted for him) to slice off 4 divisions and cut the Navy in half because they thought they had better uses for it than letting the Mil have it(and when you're strapped for getting current gear, repairing gear, and getting the pipeline for future gear decision makers aren't going to worry about things like the VA so much, particularly when it isn't being stressed so hard in peacetime.).

But, to be fair, the anger at 'liberals' is fair too. Nine times out of ten it is 'liberals' who want to cut mil spending to fund something like Headstart for everyone(instead of just for really impoverished or disabled children).

Al, I always have a problem with the 'war tax' argument. You do realize that we took in more tax revenue last year than just about any year ever? That we funded WW2 with lesser taxes? And temporary taxes usually aren't---just like temporary presidential powers typically become permanent(like the power grab by FDR, over which a SCOTUS battle was being fought and to win said battle FDR was going to pack the court, that means every pres now has immense pull on domestic issues when they didn't prior to FDR). There's enough revenue coming in to do this without a war tax. How about we get rid of Amtrak, a perennial in the red service? Sell it to a private provider. There's a ton of other things that could be axed because they are entirely unnecessary before we need a war tax.
And again(have you read my essay Al?), a war tax now really wouldn't fix the problem. It'll take a few years before that cash infusion will begun to be seen in the field. And then, when the war in Iraq is over, the public will demand we scale back again---producing the late 90s situation all over again, and this all over again the next time a pres decides to go to war without a 5 year build up.
I really think we've mythologized WW2 and the rationing scheme too much. My Mom lived thru it and the way she talks about it it wasn't a great thing. It was hated. It sucked. 3 years of it had people in backwoods Wisconsin(and other places) talking about voting in someone who would get us out of the war(which makes me question why so many are so in favor of a war tax. Is it because they know it will kill support? Rather a cheap trick to get your way if so ain't it?).

SD and Trias, most of my childhood friends joined, myself being the only one who went to college(Craig went to The Point after being JROTC) instead. They do write/call me saying how pissed off they are that they are being turned into a political football, how much they hate us Normals because we don't understand and can't understand. One side arguing that they more authentically care about 'The Troops' more. This guy and Beth have a point(though, I would be a little more kind to Murtha. He may want to pull out any time there's trouble but he typically votes to get the gear.). While they, my buddies and their Brothers, like seeing that yellow bumper sticker they're also aware of the triteness of it. It's bitter sweet for them(We're remembered, but, damn, why's that $itch driving an f'n Hummer, with perfectly manicured nails and coiffed, dyed blonde hair, and wearing Gucci sunglasses while my buddies and I had to sleep in 115 degree heat, eat crap food, and mickey mouse $hit?). And they absolutely want to skull hump those who say things like, 'Support the troops. Bring them home.' Because it's cheap to do either. Because it's easy. Because it isn't substantive help(though it is a psychological boost to some when they first came home.).

I've known some of these guys longer (Moran(20 some odd days longer) and Boner(yes, his last name really is Boner and I've known him a few years longer)) than my wife's been alive. the group's collectively gotten into spittle inflected rages over this. Support shouldn't start when Bush said we're going to war and it shouldn't stop when the last man steps of the Starfrog ladder Stateside. That's what they're pissed about: the easy stuff's being done now, but none of the hard stuff was done years ago when it could've mattered. They're tired that they have become a political football.

And yeah, it's a lot easier to point the finger at someone else. It's a lot easier to try and make our own efforts seem much grander than they really are. (I could've made arguing budgeting in places other than living rooms and restaurant tables the last 15 years). So let's not fault Beth for this overmuch. We sacrifice what we can without making utter messes of our lives. That's all we can do at this point. We can't undo the late 90's.

Later today or tomorrow, I will post the next installment in the series. While I really like just having fun in the comments, it's stuff like this that differentiate blogs from the other forms of media. Especially when people follow the Rulez and it doesn't degenerate into a Sunday Morning Talk Show/Daily Kos/LGF shout-fest.

Share This Article:

Share |

Categories:

8 Comments

By Ryan Gill on July 5, 2006 12:09 PM
Personally, I'm opposed to dropping funding of Amtrak unless it means that there is a removal of the funding for FAA ATC operations as well as federal highway funding. Rail travel needs federal funding because of our size. On 9/11, AMTRAK was the only useful way to get around, even though it was packed.
 
By ry on July 5, 2006 3:31 PM
THat's not the point. Not the point at all. YOu want to gut the 'Bridge to Nowehere' instead? Fine. HAve at it. You want to stop naming every building in W. Virginia(with fed money no less) after Sen. Byrd? Have at it. Want to go after the USPS instead? Have at it. Want to scale back the money given to the National Endowment for the Arts? GO right ahead as that is definitely a luxury item in the Federal Budget. There's stuff to cut long before we need to increase taxes(and those could be considered sacrifices too, particularly NEA or NPR, but cutting those is fascism I tell you. Fascism.). There's more than enough money there to get the job done IF we were to actually be smart about how we spend it. Not everything is of the same level of necessity. Also, note I didn't say tear up all the tracks. I said put it under new management. I once drove semis for a living. I know how important infrastructure is to commerce and the economic health of the nation. Please pay attention to what I really did say and the context in which it was said as that helps imply meaning. I'll admit, I'm a Westerner by birth and culture. We all own cars. We all drive everywhere. A two hour round trip drive to work translates into a 5 hour public transit commute out there(even if you use BART in SF it adds mega time to your commute). So maybe there is a little bit of regional bias going on with the call to ditch AMTRACK(which another Californian has been demanding for years: Tucker Carlson). It isn't the same thing out West as it is taking Amtrack from NY to Baltimore. Even San Diego to Orange County is 3-4 hours, or more. But that still doesn't say anything about the intelligent use of money federal money. The freight trains use the same rails and aren't federally owned. Why does it make sense, why is it a federal necessity, ro fund commuter rail if the freight is 100x better run(in terms of service and cost efficiency) than AMTRACK has ever been? More reasoning behind the argument please.
 
By John of Argghhh!!! on July 5, 2006 3:52 PM
Mebbe if you'd spell it AMTRAK...
 
By kat-missouri on July 5, 2006 7:38 PM
A few succinct comments: I am completely amazed how some myths do continue to perpetuate. Troops have always been political footballs. Read more history. Starting from the Revolution to today different political groups have always made the troops, their need, their needs and their activities part of the political fodder that fuels this nation. I was just watching an excellent piece on the Revolution. Part of the myth is the winter of Valley Forge. While it was hard and there was sickness (largely due to poor hygiene and camp discipline), an interesting archeological dig and research into documents have shown that the soldiers might have been poor and not eating the kinds of meals that we would like to enjoy three times a day, they were hardly starving and naked. Yet, Washington wrote those very words in a dispatch. Why? Because the continental congress was jacking around with money and supplies. He was losing recruits whose enlistments were up and he had nothing additional to promise them to keep them there and fighting. On top of that, his generals were writing letters behind his back; politicians were booting about his numerous losses. There was a lot of political background noise going on. Civil war, the same thing. It is historically blind and frankly part of creating the American myth to imagine that any war was popular, had complete support, had all the tools, ammo and weapons that they wanted or needed (I mean, you all do remember as a gun pron blog that the department of the army did not see fit to purchase repeating rifles due to the cost, ability to be massed produced and concern of use/waste of ammunition). Soldiers should remember that, too. In fact, soldiers of the civil war were not exactly admired by all as the epitome of morals and virtue. I still recall that soldierss would leave their dice and cards behind when going into battle so they wouldn't be returned to their families in their personal effects and they would not learn what sort of deeds these gentelmen had gotten up to in camp. I did say succinct so I'll summarize that point: Soldiers and support has never been what people like to pretend it to be. I'll comment on the budget and the "army we want" after dinner.
   
By ry on July 5, 2006 8:17 PM
All true Kat(I do remember a Marine general complaining about the bolt action rifle being replaced tripled his ammo expenditures and rather decreased battlefield marksmanship) thanks for coming back. No more torturing your readers with me. But, again, for reasons of familiarization and doctrine the time for equipping and building an army is during peacetime. It's a difficult endeavour in the midst of a war. My sol'n really boils down to talking up the military and its budgetary needs all the time. Not exagerating but stating what's needed and why. We'll never be 100% right, but it's better than what we've got now. Fine, I can't spell. So what? at least I'm not using text or writing in ebonics. So much fuss about either a few missing or extra letters. sheesh.
 
By ry on July 5, 2006 9:30 PM
"Troops have always been political footballs." This bothers me a little. It ignores something I think is critical to this: what do the troops think about this in our age of instant reportage? Does it have an effect in the field? Does it lead to soldiers coming home and saying we should quit because nobody cares about them? From what I’ve seen they’re mad about being a wedge issue and a slogan with which we Normals beat our political opponents down, and probably always have. True, there's always been politicization of the military, in peace and in war. But what does this matter if your real question is whether the 'footballization' of the troops affects them in some mental or emotional manner to the detriment of performance? History may allow them a cynical type of armor for it, but looking to see if we can do better is something worthwhile (IMO). Dismissing the issue just seems too easy and callous (yeah, I know, look who’s talking). We don’t live in historical times. We live in our time, and it is very different from what anteceded it. Anticipating what happens in our time is imperative. History helps us get there, but by itself history isn’t enough. So let’s re-ask John’s question: Does this effect the warfighter in a truly detrimental way? (there, spellchecked and grammer checked by Windows software. Better? ;) )
 
By Casey Tompkins on July 8, 2006 2:53 AM
Ry sez
"Troops have always been political footballs." This bothers me a little. It ignores something I think is critical to this: what do the troops think about this in our age of instant reportage?
I think most of 'em (except in unusual circumstances such as after Vietnam) shrug and say "different day, same old..." Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?" But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll" The problem with Ry's (excellent) suggestion is the question: how do we determine "how much is appropriate?" If nothing else, our perception (as voters, hence our representative's votes) of threat changes over time. The simple fact that the Soviet Union died with a whimper was fatal to a large part of the defense budget, and (to a certain extent) deservedly so. In nothing else, we don't need tens of thousands of soldiers stationed in Britain, Germany, and South Korea, at the least. And -absent the 9/11 attacks- how does one justify continuing Cold War levels of defense spending, once the USSR has evaporated, China is investing in private markets, and North Vietnam wants to hold talks with Lloyd's, PepsiCo, and GM? True, there will be future threats, but the hard question is: what will they be?. Worse yet, what doctrine, strategy, and logistical support will we need to defend against these future threats? The history of the B-17 Flying Fortress constitutes one of the most instructive narratives available for such dilemmas. It used in many ways (for the time) "bleeding edge" technology, was horrendously expensive compared to its competitor (the B-18 Bolo), and in the view of many US Army leaders was superfluous to requirements. Hell, most folks don't know that Boeing came within a heartbeat of dropping the B-17, as they were losing money on every craft issued to the US Army Air Corps before 1941. Massive Retaliation, the Pentomic Army, no guns in jet fighters, nuclear mortars; sometimes it's a bitch deciding how to fight the next war... P.S. Let me add that this explains Canada's anemic defense budget, not to mention the more pacifistic tendencies of Europe. Since the United States has (historically) been the biggest threat to Canada, once we made nice and took up the burden of continental defense (such as NORAD), the Canadian armed forces lacked a significant strategic motivatin for funding. They have lately regained one via regular use of Canadian forces in peacekeeping missions. Same thing for Europe, except for France, who followed de Gaulle on their own idiosycratic path: the United States undertook to provide the main bulwark of defense against the only credible threat to post-WW2 Europe: the Soviet Union. Most of Europe could only function (at best) as military auxiliaries, so their citizens accordingly revised their threat estimations downwards. Once the USSR fell, they saw no real need at all for European armed forces except in a philanthropic sense of keeping the the third world peace. Certainly Europe didn't need military solutions after the "end of history." This is why I don't generally hold to the "Europeans are weenies" POV; Europeans managed to conquer the rest of the world in a fairly short span of time, before they decided to give it back. They just haven't had their faces rubbed into the real world, save a few poor souls in Madrid and London. I don't doubt that most Europeans still have some courage buried deep inside them, just like hobbits. :) I suspect a similar sea-change is in effect right now in Japan. The sons of Nippon have been dedicated pacifists for sixty years, but by all reports they've begun to find that garment rather chafing. I doubt Japan will "turn to the dark side," as it were, but I don't doubt that many countries will curse the day that North Korea awakened that particular sleeping giant... So in the end I must conclude that Ry's goal of determining "what's needed and why" is a very difficult one.