this really takes the "...but we support the troops" meme to a whole new level. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/01/the_troops_also_need_to_suppor.html [rquoter]The Troops Also Need to Support the American People I've been mulling over an NBC Nightly News report from Iraq last Friday in which a number of soldiers expressed frustration with opposition to war in the United States. I'm sure the soldiers were expressing a majority opinion common amongst the ranks - that's why it is news - and I'm also sure no one in the military leadership or the administration put the soldiers up to expressing their views, nor steered NBC reporter Richard Engel to the story. I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people. Friday's NBC Nightly News included a story from my colleague and friend Richard Engel, who was embedded with an active duty Army infantry battalion from Fort Lewis, Washington. Engel relayed how "troops here say they are increasingly frustrated by American criticism of the war. Many take it personally, believing it is also criticism of what they've been fighting for." First up was 21 year old junior enlisted man Tyler Johnson, whom Engel said was frustrated about war skepticism and thinks that critics "should come over and see what it's like firsthand before criticizing." "You may support or say we support the troops, but, so you're not supporting what they do, what they're here sweating for, what we bleed for, what we die for. It just don't make sense to me," Johnson said. Next up was Staff Sergeant Manuel Sahagun, who is on his second tour in Iraq. He complained that "one thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops, but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way." Next was Specialist Peter Manna: "If they don't think we're doing a good job, everything that we've done here is all in vain," he said. These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President's handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect. Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order. Sure, it is the junior enlisted men who go to jail. But even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We don't see very many "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon. So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society? I can imagine some post-9/11 moment, when the American people say enough already with the wars against terrorism and those in the national security establishment feel these same frustrations. In my little parable, those in leadership positions shake their heads that the people don't get it, that they don't understand that the threat from terrorism, while difficult to defeat, demands commitment and sacrifice and is very real because it is so shadowy, that the very survival of the United States is at stake. Those Hoovers and Nixons will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers. If it weren't about the United States, I'd say the story would end with a military coup where those in the know, and those with fire in their bellies, would save the nation from the people. But it is the United States, and the recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work. The notion of dirty work is that, like laundry, it is something that has to be done but no one else wants to do it. But Iraq is not dirty work: it is not some necessary endeavor; the people just don't believe that anymore. I'll accept that the soldiers, in order to soldier on, have to believe that they are manning the parapet, and that's where their frustrations come in. I'll accept as well that they are young and naïve and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the never changing situation in Iraq. Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate back home confuses them. America needs to ponder what it is we really owe those in uniform. I don't believe America needs a draft though I imagine we'd be having a different discussion if we had one.[/rquoter] it almost could have been written by uomo del blocco, lui stesso...
I don't know what you were babbling in a foreign tongue, basso, but I really don't like this columnist. Seriously, really, truly don't like him. I think he is an ass, who's deliberately using inflammatory language about a serious situation, and I find his description of the troops condescending and asinine. D&D. Asinine has a Number in it.
what would you call the 50 thousand contractors over there? a quarter to a third of americans over there are mercenaries.
looks like he backed away from that already. what a moron. People like him really make it easy for the right to point fingers and say "do you really want these kind of people protecting you?" ok the public has no duties to the military, let's see how fine we get along by eliminating the military. Let's see how that'll work out for us. how else were they supposed to take your words? Are you saying that it's ok for us to doubt everything you say form now on? Is there any other way they're supposed to take it? he calls them mercenaries and then says we shouldn't think he looks at them with contempt. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/02/post_11.html
First, that is not what the author was referring to, he was talking about the men and women of the armed forces. Second, his point was not about them being mercenaries, but that they should be happy about the "support" they are receiving and should shut up about debate on the home front. This column will appeal to some segment of society, and everyone else will just recognize that this blogger is an ass.
he admits he did it for the attention in his "apology" that I posted above. I admit, it worked, I actually wasted my time finding out he was actually in the army for 4 years form 74-78 and that he worked for Greenpeace afterwards. The LA Times hired him as their regular military affairs columnist, and it was during that time (2003) that he started a personal feud with a general Boykins, which some of you might be familiar with. I further wasted my time to look at a 5 page speech he gave in 2002 about the Bush administration. http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/10/11/arkin/print.html
Clearly, the goofus read this thread and knew he had to back off his stupidity. D&D. On the Cutting Edge of Societal Revolution.
He states that America doesn't need a draft, but says a volunteer army consist of "mercenaries". So is he suggesting that we disband our armed forces and enact a draft when needed? Well only about 20,000 of those contractors are armed contractors doing static and PSD protection, the rest are cooks, mechanics etc.. And calling them mercenaries is highly debatable.
I have a close relative in a supervisory position in Baghdad, working as a contractor. He certainly isn't a mercenary, nor are most of the rest of the people he works with.The company he works for keeps giving him promotions and large pay increases, and he can't bring himself to walk away from the money. I wish he'd come home, or go to another country, but he's tossing the dice. D&D. Seven!
I would argue that the private security forces working in Iraq are mercenaries. I would also argue that farming out traditional military support functions like Logistics... food, shelter, transportation, etc., place more contractors in jeopardy, necessarily increase the number of true mercenaries, is more expensive to the US, and places people (the mercenaries) with guns and the imprimatur of the US government in a place where they have no real accountability, knowledge, or training. In short, the whole design of the organization works to defeat one of the stated purposes of the war. If we don't want soldiers doing stuff better left to the State Department, we certainly don't want mercenaries doing it... yet by their very functions, they come into regular contact with Iraqis. All this because either we originally wanted to keep the number of troops in Iraq low or we wanted to give lucrative contracts to Republican donors, or quite probably both.
"I don't like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries. If they are mercenaries, then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general. We are served by mercenary physicians, we use a mercenary lawyer, and we get our meat from a mercenary butcher." -Milton Friedman
Although you do have some valid points, the word mercenary has very negative connotations. These "mercenaries" work for legal companies, that provide very specific services. How does protecting their principles or facilities make them mercenaries. They're not paid to fight or go on the offensive, they're paid to protect whatever they are contracted to do. I bet just about every contractor is content with completing their assignment without having to fire their weapon. I do agree with you that they are highly controversial and their presence in Iraq is negative and their conduct is reflected on the US military. But with the downsizing of US military, the need for contractors is only going to grow in times of conflict.
"I'm just asking you to understand that different people have different views of the world, and that those views don't mean that they are un-American, anti-American, or contemptuous of the military." How can perjoratively calling the military 'mercenaries' be anything but anti-American and contemptuous of the military. Nice.
