Veterans for Common Sense
July 20, 2003 10:54 AM Subscribe
Veterans for Common Sense seeks to inject the element of Common Sense into debates over war and national security. In an age when the majority of public servants have never served in uniform, the perspective of war veterans must play a key role in the public debate over national security issues in order to preserve the liberty veterans have fought and died preserving. With the rift growing between the military and their Executive Branch bosses, here's a different approach to supporting the troops.
Ignatius J. Reilly, thanks for another valuable link. In order to motivate a broad spectrum of Americans to actively oppose Bush, it's necessary to make clear that a) dissent is not unpatriotic, and b) dissent is emanating from more than just 'the usual suspects' (and I use the term 'suspects' advisedly!)
Kablam, it sounds like you're reading, remembering, and analyzing selectively. I found that the link addressed plenty of 'big issues' and gave people practical suggestions about how to support their troops without falling for the idea that they need to support the administration as well.
Also, note that:
-George H.W. Bush was the one who went into Somalia
-Albright and Clinton were the ones who ignored the Rwandan genocide
-there is no reason to believe that the judicious use of the armed forces for non-traditional missions can't be successful (although some of your criticisms are well-placed)
-Far from treating the U.S. armed forces as mercenaries, Bush is refusing to give them reasonable danger pay and family-separation allowances.
posted by stonerose at 12:02 PM on July 20, 2003
Kablam, it sounds like you're reading, remembering, and analyzing selectively. I found that the link addressed plenty of 'big issues' and gave people practical suggestions about how to support their troops without falling for the idea that they need to support the administration as well.
Also, note that:
-George H.W. Bush was the one who went into Somalia
-Albright and Clinton were the ones who ignored the Rwandan genocide
-there is no reason to believe that the judicious use of the armed forces for non-traditional missions can't be successful (although some of your criticisms are well-placed)
-Far from treating the U.S. armed forces as mercenaries, Bush is refusing to give them reasonable danger pay and family-separation allowances.
posted by stonerose at 12:02 PM on July 20, 2003
Veterans For Common Sense. Hm. It looks like "common sense" in this case applies only to people who *didn't* approve of our liberation of Iraq.
posted by davidmsc at 12:29 PM on July 20, 2003
posted by davidmsc at 12:29 PM on July 20, 2003
Veterans For Common Sense. Hm. It looks like "common sense" in this case applies only to people who *didn't* approve of our liberation of Iraq.
They certainly pre-date the war, and you can find info on their site about their efforts to understand and fight Gulf War Syndrome.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 1:28 PM on July 20, 2003
They certainly pre-date the war, and you can find info on their site about their efforts to understand and fight Gulf War Syndrome.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 1:28 PM on July 20, 2003
davidmsc: You might want to take a look at this letter from the site, and note the list of signatories. I'd say they're entitled to their opinions on the war, and express them pretty well.
posted by Zonker at 1:37 PM on July 20, 2003
posted by Zonker at 1:37 PM on July 20, 2003
I am not convinced that having served in the military in and of itself gives one an expertise that those not having served don't have. It is true of course that given drafts etc you are not likely to find many children of congressmen (or presidents) having served--Can any of you recall the adage of the Civil War: It is a Rich man's war and a poor man's fight. Slave owners (The South) were exempt from service (if they so chose) in order to run their plantations! Those with money could buy their way out of service--thus the poor earned money by doing duty for those with money.
I have found that there are many in service who fall into typical party views: the Left and the Right, and they will echo often what others do on issues.
Since I have served twice in the military I can state with reat authority but one thing: I don't know squat other than what I read, believe because of upbringing, class input, leanings, and age. One thing I do know: I tell my young son to leave the country if they want to draft him unless it is a world war that many nations join in on and approve of.
posted by Postroad at 2:00 PM on July 20, 2003
I have found that there are many in service who fall into typical party views: the Left and the Right, and they will echo often what others do on issues.
Since I have served twice in the military I can state with reat authority but one thing: I don't know squat other than what I read, believe because of upbringing, class input, leanings, and age. One thing I do know: I tell my young son to leave the country if they want to draft him unless it is a world war that many nations join in on and approve of.
posted by Postroad at 2:00 PM on July 20, 2003
Veterans For Common Sense. Hm. It looks like "common sense" in this case applies only to people who *didn't* approve of our liberation of Iraq.
when all else fails (and it always does, lately, if one tries to defend the White House actions) change the subject. change the subject. change the subject. because otherwise you'll need to talk about stuff like one-dead-US-soldier-a-day in "liberated" Iraq, where's Saddam (playing poker with Osama, one supposes), the biggest deficit in history, corporate welfare, underpaid soldiers who feel betrayed by their "bring'en on", "mission accomplished!!!" commander-in-chief.
change the subject. always.
posted by matteo at 3:38 PM on July 20, 2003
when all else fails (and it always does, lately, if one tries to defend the White House actions) change the subject. change the subject. change the subject. because otherwise you'll need to talk about stuff like one-dead-US-soldier-a-day in "liberated" Iraq, where's Saddam (playing poker with Osama, one supposes), the biggest deficit in history, corporate welfare, underpaid soldiers who feel betrayed by their "bring'en on", "mission accomplished!!!" commander-in-chief.
change the subject. always.
posted by matteo at 3:38 PM on July 20, 2003
matteo: but all told, what you just mentioned *should* be changed from the subject. Because the subject should NOT be the endless petty debates about a war that's already over; it should be about the NEXT war. Not about one soldier a day dying but hundreds or thousands, IF the executive doesn't understand or appreciate military strategy and tactics AND doesn't understand what the purpose of a military is.
And as far as "should military men steadfastly condemn Bush and the politics of the Republican party", which is what you seem to be advocating, I might remind you that 95% of the senior officers and 90% of ALL officers AND the vast majority of enlisted personnel *politically affiliate* themselves *with* the Republican party.
And whether or not this is a good thing, if you asked them, (and they are polled every so often), their opinion of the Democrat party is terribly low. They may not love the Republicans, but they loathe the Democrats.
It actually worries me tremendously, such affiliation for a political party, when as recently as Eisenhower, the majority of officers opposed *any* party affiliation, out of principal. But whereas the Republicans at least make some attempt to reach out to ethnic minorities, the Democrats project nothing but hate and scorn for the military, or at least that is what the military thinks of their attitude.
So, here is the paradox: a "Veterans" website that seems to parrot the Democratic Party opinion. Where is its credibility if it does not make tremendous efforts to show that its interests lie *not* with a political party, but with the men and women in uniform?
posted by kablam at 4:21 PM on July 20, 2003
And as far as "should military men steadfastly condemn Bush and the politics of the Republican party", which is what you seem to be advocating, I might remind you that 95% of the senior officers and 90% of ALL officers AND the vast majority of enlisted personnel *politically affiliate* themselves *with* the Republican party.
And whether or not this is a good thing, if you asked them, (and they are polled every so often), their opinion of the Democrat party is terribly low. They may not love the Republicans, but they loathe the Democrats.
It actually worries me tremendously, such affiliation for a political party, when as recently as Eisenhower, the majority of officers opposed *any* party affiliation, out of principal. But whereas the Republicans at least make some attempt to reach out to ethnic minorities, the Democrats project nothing but hate and scorn for the military, or at least that is what the military thinks of their attitude.
So, here is the paradox: a "Veterans" website that seems to parrot the Democratic Party opinion. Where is its credibility if it does not make tremendous efforts to show that its interests lie *not* with a political party, but with the men and women in uniform?
posted by kablam at 4:21 PM on July 20, 2003
It looks like "common sense" in this case applies only to people who *didn't* approve of our liberation of Iraq.
Isn't that a tautology?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:32 PM on July 20, 2003
Isn't that a tautology?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:32 PM on July 20, 2003
it should be about the NEXT war.
barf.
I might remind you that 95% of the senior officers and 90% of ALL officers AND the vast majority of enlisted personnel *politically affiliate* themselves *with* the Republican party.
url!
So, here is the paradox: a "Veterans" website that seems to parrot the Democratic Party opinion.
and therefore only for democrats? you don't have to be a dirty DIRTY lefty to disagree with the leader.
posted by mcsweetie at 4:35 PM on July 20, 2003
barf.
I might remind you that 95% of the senior officers and 90% of ALL officers AND the vast majority of enlisted personnel *politically affiliate* themselves *with* the Republican party.
url!
So, here is the paradox: a "Veterans" website that seems to parrot the Democratic Party opinion.
and therefore only for democrats? you don't have to be a dirty DIRTY lefty to disagree with the leader.
posted by mcsweetie at 4:35 PM on July 20, 2003
Because the subject should NOT be the endless petty debates about a war that's already over;
Stupid petty dead 20-year-old boys and girls. Why won't their souls and families just shut up?
When is Bush going to arbitrarilly declare an end to global warming?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 4:53 PM on July 20, 2003
Stupid petty dead 20-year-old boys and girls. Why won't their souls and families just shut up?
When is Bush going to arbitrarilly declare an end to global warming?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 4:53 PM on July 20, 2003
When is Bush going to arbitrarilly declare an end to global warming?
Hasn't he already? I assumed that's why we don't need the ozone layer anymore.
posted by homunculus at 5:10 PM on July 20, 2003
Hasn't he already? I assumed that's why we don't need the ozone layer anymore.
posted by homunculus at 5:10 PM on July 20, 2003
Two thirds of US Military affiliate with the Republican Party.
"...64 percent of elite military officers called themselves Republicans. Only 8 percent said they were Democrats." (So, excepting non-partisans, 88.8% with political leanings lean toward the Republican Party.)
I am not saying this is a good situation, but the reality is that if you look at the issues being addressed by non-affiliated but military oriented publications, you won't see the same subjects discussed as on this web page.
posted by kablam at 5:26 PM on July 20, 2003
"...64 percent of elite military officers called themselves Republicans. Only 8 percent said they were Democrats." (So, excepting non-partisans, 88.8% with political leanings lean toward the Republican Party.)
I am not saying this is a good situation, but the reality is that if you look at the issues being addressed by non-affiliated but military oriented publications, you won't see the same subjects discussed as on this web page.
posted by kablam at 5:26 PM on July 20, 2003
of course you won't - we use words bigger than they understand.
posted by quonsar at 5:41 PM on July 20, 2003
posted by quonsar at 5:41 PM on July 20, 2003
quonsar: Instead of little words, like "honor", "justice", "discipline", "respect", and "sacrifice", that you don't understand?
posted by kablam at 5:50 PM on July 20, 2003
posted by kablam at 5:50 PM on July 20, 2003
I am not saying this is a good situation, but the reality is that if you look at the issues being addressed by non-affiliated but military oriented publications, you won't see the same subjects discussed as on this web page.
Oh yeah?
Maybe whoever gathered the numbers for your statistical links ought to go get another sample.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 6:17 PM on July 20, 2003
Oh yeah?
Maybe whoever gathered the numbers for your statistical links ought to go get another sample.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 6:17 PM on July 20, 2003
From IJR's first link:
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:42 PM on July 20, 2003
However convincing the case for an attack on Iraq, preemption as a declaratory doctrine lacking criteria but applicable to a generic category of states invites real trouble after Iraq, and for that reason could turn out to be a poor, even impossible basis for America’s relations with the rest of the world.In a sentence, that sums up the response to Bush and the hawk in their drive for war. The paragraph that follows, however, gives even more weight to the argument:
In the earliest years of the Cold War, before the Soviet Union exploded its first atomic bomb, there were calls in the United States for preventive war against another evil dictator. The calls continued even after the Soviets detonated their first bomb in 1949. Indeed, in the following year, the Commandant of the Air Force’s new Air War College publicly asked to be given the order to conduct a nuclear strike against fledgling Soviet atomic capabilities. “And when I went to Christ,” said the Commandant, “I think I could explain to Him why I wanted to do it now before it’s too late. I think I could explain to Him that I had saved civilization. With it [the A-bomb] used in time, we can immobilize a foe [and] reduce his crime before it happened.” President Truman fired the Commandant, preferring instead a long, hard, and, in the end, stunningly successful policy of containment and deterrence.That Commandant sounds distressingly familiar.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:42 PM on July 20, 2003
"honor", "justice", "discipline", "respect", and "sacrifice", that you don't understand?
words fascists wrap themselves in.
posted by quonsar at 6:46 PM on July 20, 2003
words fascists wrap themselves in.
posted by quonsar at 6:46 PM on July 20, 2003
Okay. Bush has no honor, he and his cronies should be brought to justice and disciplined because they have no respect for the law or for the lives that they have sacrificed for their political gain.
posted by George_Spiggott at 7:13 PM on July 20, 2003
posted by George_Spiggott at 7:13 PM on July 20, 2003
The words of cowards, traitors, finks and perverts.
But I would never call democrats "fascists". I would call them "communists", but "Menshevics", denoting their utter ineffectuality, meagerness of substance, and inflated egos, seems to be more on point. "Philistine", too, comes to mind, if you consider their poor taste and inability to conduct themselves with civility. "Pseudo-intellectual" will undoubtedly figure in their witty retort to this post, maybe to call me or other military people "fascists" or "Nazis" again. Did I mention their utter lack of creativity?
posted by kablam at 7:44 PM on July 20, 2003
But I would never call democrats "fascists". I would call them "communists", but "Menshevics", denoting their utter ineffectuality, meagerness of substance, and inflated egos, seems to be more on point. "Philistine", too, comes to mind, if you consider their poor taste and inability to conduct themselves with civility. "Pseudo-intellectual" will undoubtedly figure in their witty retort to this post, maybe to call me or other military people "fascists" or "Nazis" again. Did I mention their utter lack of creativity?
posted by kablam at 7:44 PM on July 20, 2003
Way to stay on the point. No ad hominem attacks there, no sirree.
posted by George_Spiggott at 7:50 PM on July 20, 2003
posted by George_Spiggott at 7:50 PM on July 20, 2003
*sigh*
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:52 PM on July 20, 2003
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:52 PM on July 20, 2003
I long ago placed the term "common sense" on my big list of Oxymorons (apologies for the eye-unfriendly format), whether I agreed with whomever is using the term or not. Sense is not all that common... and using that term is just a way to marginalize those who disagree with you.
Whether the argument is sound is another matter altogether. It would appear that the arguments of "VCS" are becoming the feelings of a growing percentage of active military personnel (although more likely a larger percentage of former military personnel and families of active military personnel), but we are not yet close to the point where it will be seen as a significant change. The shabby treatment that the W Administration gives to its military people may come back and bite them, but maybe their assumption that soldiers just follow orders will hold true. Check the re-enlistment rates in the next few months... (but then, aren't they now holding soldiers beyond their enlistment term?)
posted by wendell at 10:12 PM on July 20, 2003
Whether the argument is sound is another matter altogether. It would appear that the arguments of "VCS" are becoming the feelings of a growing percentage of active military personnel (although more likely a larger percentage of former military personnel and families of active military personnel), but we are not yet close to the point where it will be seen as a significant change. The shabby treatment that the W Administration gives to its military people may come back and bite them, but maybe their assumption that soldiers just follow orders will hold true. Check the re-enlistment rates in the next few months... (but then, aren't they now holding soldiers beyond their enlistment term?)
posted by wendell at 10:12 PM on July 20, 2003
The words of cowards, traitors, finks and perverts.
But I would never call democrats "fascists". I would call them "communists", but "Menshevics", denoting their utter ineffectuality, meagerness of substance, and inflated egos, seems to be more on point. "Philistine", too, comes to mind, if you consider their poor taste and inability to conduct themselves with civility. "Pseudo-intellectual" will undoubtedly figure in their witty retort to this post, maybe to call me or other military people "fascists" or "Nazis" again. Did I mention their utter lack of creativity?
I just wanted people to be able to read that again without having to scroll up. You're welcome.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:39 PM on July 20, 2003
But I would never call democrats "fascists". I would call them "communists", but "Menshevics", denoting their utter ineffectuality, meagerness of substance, and inflated egos, seems to be more on point. "Philistine", too, comes to mind, if you consider their poor taste and inability to conduct themselves with civility. "Pseudo-intellectual" will undoubtedly figure in their witty retort to this post, maybe to call me or other military people "fascists" or "Nazis" again. Did I mention their utter lack of creativity?
I just wanted people to be able to read that again without having to scroll up. You're welcome.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:39 PM on July 20, 2003
More communist propaganda:
'Weekend Warriors' No More
National Guard's Expanded Role in Iraq Combines Risky Duties, Long Deployment
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:57 PM on July 20, 2003
'Weekend Warriors' No More
National Guard's Expanded Role in Iraq Combines Risky Duties, Long Deployment
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:57 PM on July 20, 2003
Instead of little words, like "honor", "justice", "discipline", "respect", and "sacrifice", that you don't understand?
No, it goes like this:
We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline.Because deep down in places I don't like to talk about at parties, I want kablam on that wall, I need him on that wall.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:23 AM on July 21, 2003
kirkaracha: an interesting point. But I might also point out that in military justice (another oxymoron, perhaps), homicide is less serious an offense (at least judging from sentencing), then is sodomy.
And *that* is because the purpose of the UCMJ is *not* "justice" as its primary goal, but the "maintenance of moral and discipline in the armed forces." Why this should be often goes over the heads of many civilians, but makes a great deal of sense to the military, those people that quonsor finds to be so beneath him.
So, in the final analysis, while the Colonel played by Jack Nicholson would have been punished, it probably would have been for less than 10 years prison time with dishonorable discharge and forfeiture of pension, etc.; whereas he could have received a life sentence or the death penalty from a civilian court.
Now since terms like "honor", "discipline", "loyalty", "respect" and "sacrifice" are so painful for liberals in general to use, except as a "punchline", I'd like to quote them again as something they may sneer at, at will, because they will never have them, no matter what they do, and will never belong to an organization where they are cherished, at least long enough to earn them.
And please note that I omitted the word "code", which while it might have some vague Marine Corps meaning, is not "people" based. Because the other words come into their fore when you are surrounded by others that personify and embrace them as do you.
posted by kablam at 11:54 AM on July 21, 2003
And *that* is because the purpose of the UCMJ is *not* "justice" as its primary goal, but the "maintenance of moral and discipline in the armed forces." Why this should be often goes over the heads of many civilians, but makes a great deal of sense to the military, those people that quonsor finds to be so beneath him.
So, in the final analysis, while the Colonel played by Jack Nicholson would have been punished, it probably would have been for less than 10 years prison time with dishonorable discharge and forfeiture of pension, etc.; whereas he could have received a life sentence or the death penalty from a civilian court.
Now since terms like "honor", "discipline", "loyalty", "respect" and "sacrifice" are so painful for liberals in general to use, except as a "punchline", I'd like to quote them again as something they may sneer at, at will, because they will never have them, no matter what they do, and will never belong to an organization where they are cherished, at least long enough to earn them.
And please note that I omitted the word "code", which while it might have some vague Marine Corps meaning, is not "people" based. Because the other words come into their fore when you are surrounded by others that personify and embrace them as do you.
posted by kablam at 11:54 AM on July 21, 2003
"If a man speaks of his honor, make him pay cash." -- RAH.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:35 PM on July 21, 2003
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:35 PM on July 21, 2003
ooh, ooh, kablam:
Can you tell me if I am a fink or pervert? I am having trouble figuring out which. I always check out women on the bus, which is sort of pervish, but I'm also all shifty and untrustworthy. Which is it? You've gotta help me here.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 1:01 PM on July 21, 2003
Can you tell me if I am a fink or pervert? I am having trouble figuring out which. I always check out women on the bus, which is sort of pervish, but I'm also all shifty and untrustworthy. Which is it? You've gotta help me here.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 1:01 PM on July 21, 2003
Now since terms like "honor", "discipline", "loyalty", "respect" and "sacrifice" are so painful for liberals in general to use, except as a "punchline"...
Yup. You got it. Those concepts, if not anathema, are just jokes to every single liberal out there -- who incidentally all believe EXACTLY the same things as one another. Didn't you get the memo?
Sheesh.
posted by Vidiot at 9:54 PM on July 21, 2003
Yup. You got it. Those concepts, if not anathema, are just jokes to every single liberal out there -- who incidentally all believe EXACTLY the same things as one another. Didn't you get the memo?
Sheesh.
posted by Vidiot at 9:54 PM on July 21, 2003
« Older Indian art | Are you freaked out yet? Keep watching. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
The former case is terribly destructive of unit cohesion and effective operation, and is very wasteful of equipment and supply, added on to the fact that "leg" soldiers are NOT humanitarian aid workers, rescue personnel, or carpenters.
They function better as a unit with their unit. You can't take a squad and send them to another continent and expect them to somehow still belong after six months.
The latter case assumes that soldiers are like day laborers, and are motivated solely by paycheck like any other employee, and that if you want them to do more than soldiers normally do, then you just need to pay them a little more or something. Even their officers are interchangeable with CIA agents or somebody with an "equivalent" GS rating. And once they've been paid, they want extra benefits? Like health care and retirement? But what have you done for us lately?
Now compare these two issues with the *news items* that the web site is discussing, that could be found in any civilian newspaper and will have little long-term effect on the policy of using military forces.
posted by kablam at 11:28 AM on July 20, 2003