Why Are We Ruled by These Fools? (Duty, Honor, Country Edition)
Lucian Trucott points out that the Bush administration has not been loyal to the army:
The Not-So-Long Gray Line - New York Times: My class, that of 1969, set a record with more than 50 percent resigning within a few years of completing the service commitment.... And now, from what I've heard from friends still in the military and during the two years I spent reporting from Iraq and Afghanistan, it seems we may be on the verge of a similar exodus of officers.... The Los Angeles Times reported on "an undercurrent of discontent within the Army's young officer corps that the Pentagon's statistics do not yet capture."
I'm not surprised.... [M]y classmates were disillusioned with more than being sent to fight an unpopular war.... [W]e were taught that the academy's honor code was what separated West Point from a mere college.... We were taught that in combat, lies could kill.... [S]oldiers are given few rights, grave responsibilities, and lots and lots of power. The honor code serves as the Bill of Rights of the Army, protecting soldiers from betraying one another and the rest of us from their terrifying power to destroy....
[T]he honor code broke down before our eyes as staff and faculty jobs at West Point began filling with officers returning from Vietnam... bogus medals... inflating body counts... drug abuse... racial discrimination, and worst of all, telling everyone above them in the chain of command that we were winning a war they knew we were losing. The lies became embedded in the curriculum of the academy, and finally in its moral DNA.... The mistake the Army made then is the same mistake it is making now: how can you educate a group of handpicked students at one of the best universities in the world and then treat them as if they are too stupid to know when they have been told a lie?...
In the fall of 2003 I was embedded with the 101st Airborne Division in northern Iraq, and its West Point lieutenants were among the most gung-ho soldiers I have ever encountered, yet most were already talking about getting out of the Army. I talked late into one night.... "I feel like politicians have created a difficult situation for us," he told me. "I know I'm going to be coming back here about a year from now. I want to get married. I want to have a life. But I feel like if I get out when my commitment is up, who's going to be coming here in my place? I feel this obligation to see it through, but everybody over here knows we're just targets. Sooner or later, your luck's going to run out."
At the time, he was commanding three vehicle convoys a day down a treacherous road to pick up hot food for his troops from the civilian contractors who never left their company's "dining facility" about five miles away. He walked daily patrols through the old city of Mosul.... The Army will need this lieutenant 20 years from now when he could be a colonel, or 30 years from now when he could have four stars on his collar. But I doubt he will be in uniform long enough to make captain....
A couple of weeks ago, I got an e-mail message from another West Point lieutenant.... "I'm getting out as soon as I can," he wrote. "Everyone I know plans on getting out, with a few exceptions. What have you got to look forward to? If you come back from a tour of getting the job done in war, it's to a battalion commander who cares more about the shine on your boots and how your trucks are parked."...
If you keep faith with soldiers and tell them the truth even when it threatens their beliefs, you run the risk of losing them. But if you peddle cleverly manipulated talking points to people who trust you not to lie, you won't merely lose them, you'll break their hearts.
The sad thing is our government is working against us all.
you write about a honor code and its broke down, I was in the Army and saw that right off, in BCT, and that was almost 40 years ago, we no longer live in a nation of rules and laws we now live in a nation of rich guys doing business for bad reasons with people like the red chinese, who want one thing, "the death of this nation", and our government has been helping for years.
hey, we now are facing a third world war because of our cesspool government, and yes, we will see a new world war within 3 years.
Posted by: Fred Dawes | June 28, 2005 at 03:00 PM
Fred Dawes:
“... and yes, we will see a new world war within 3 years.”
Would you like to make a wager on that? A real wager, no sissy stuff-- how about $10,000?
Posted by: A. Zarkov | June 28, 2005 at 04:06 PM
A Zarkhov--there are people right now--some of them the adminstration's close allies--who say this is World War IV we're fighting right now . . .
Posted by: rea | June 28, 2005 at 04:24 PM
Of course for any wager we would need to define what we mean by a “World War.” In my terms a world war would be something like WWII. A war against terrorism might have a world-wide scope, but I wouldn’t consider that a “World War.”
Posted by: A. Zarkov | June 28, 2005 at 04:31 PM
I volunteered as an ROTC officer and joined up in October, 1968. I remember from the earliest part of my duty that things just did not seem right. When I returned from my overseas assignment in Turkey (thank you once again for the reassignment, Ms. Sammons), I was shocked by the lack of discipline among the enlisted men, especially middle range NCOs. I was equally shocked by the paranoia of the officers above me, directed at junior officers like me and the draftees. They just assumed we were a bunch of disloyal potheads (or worse).
I thought this was the direct result of Viet Nam, and that the Army had recovered from that experience. I am as shocked by this article as I was as a young man.
Posted by: masaccio | June 28, 2005 at 04:40 PM
http://www.calvorn.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=5487&u=4|25|...
Male Baltimore Oriole Feeding Chick
New York City-Central Park.
Hmmm :)
Posted by: anne | June 28, 2005 at 06:37 PM
Sorry, wrong thread. This was for Brad's kids.
Posted by: anne | June 28, 2005 at 06:41 PM
Gambling is illegal at Bushwood
Posted by: ogtob | June 29, 2005 at 12:06 AM
>In my terms a world war would be something like WWII.
Uh, nice. Have you, uh, checked the world's firepower capability lately? Nobody would be left to honor that bet, I don't think.
Posted by: a different chris | June 29, 2005 at 09:33 AM
Las Vegas is our fastest growing city.
Posted by: chris | June 29, 2005 at 09:40 AM
“Nobody would be left to honor that bet, I don't think.”
I’m sure the stakes could be held in a likely neutral country such as Switzerland, or some
South American country. A world war is not synonymous with a nuclear war. It could take the form of a hot conventional war with multiple participants, say some subset of the US, Australia, Canada, NATO, Russia, China, Japan and India. Such a war would be horrendous, but not so horrendous that nobody would be left in the world.
I have been hearing these kinds apocalyptic predictions for decades. Everything from nuclear war, to environmental catastrophe. Remember Paul Eurlich’s “The Population Bomb,” where he said: “England would, in all likelihood, cease to exist?” How about “Famine 1975” (published in 1967)? Then there were numerous predictions that nuclear war was “almost certain.”
If you’re so sure you can make unqualified statements, then put you money where your mouth is. “He who lives by the crystal ball soon learns to eat ground glass.”-- Fielder
Posted by: A. Zarkov | June 29, 2005 at 11:15 AM
Oh boo hoo.
There are essentially two themes to this post.
The first, that the Bush admin is trashing the army is quite valid.
But the second one, that individual military members have been badly served, and have been used for evil purposes, is one I am quite sick of. What the hell did you expect? The US has been badly treating its soldiers and using them for evil since day 1. You managed to live till 18 without ever hearing about what happened to Native Americans, the Vietnam war or the Mexican-American war? You never once saw a Civil War movie that spoke about quartermasters stealing supplies, or a Vietnam movie about general dissatisfaction?
Perhaps when people mentioned names like Chomsky or Zinn you should have spent a day looking at what they had to say instead of snickering like the other cool kids.
To be fair, the author is not making a big deal of this second point; he's not pleading for special favors or such like. But he might want to ask himself exactly why he and his friends got into the military in the first place, and what he plans to do to make sure a new generation of recruits is not suckered.
Posted by: Maynard Handley | June 29, 2005 at 11:56 AM
Maynard,
If you wanted to be more fair you might also say that young people who joined the military had also heard about some good things too, not just the bad stuff you mentioned. They balanced the good with the bad and still decided to join. In their defense, they didn't know the extent to which the Chimp-in-Chief would end up using-and-abusing them.
A former Army field artillery officer
Posted by: Redleg | June 29, 2005 at 12:08 PM
I believe this is attributable to Josef Stalin:
"There will be no war. But in our struggle for peace, not one stone will be left standing."
And among the stones that won't be left standing are the morale and esprit de corps of the United States Army. Then again, when the Presidency and the Vice-Presidency are occupied by two cowards who never served a day in combat, what should we expect?
Posted by: Uncle Jeffy | June 30, 2005 at 11:19 AM
A little research would reveal that Truscott is the son, grandson, and great-grandson of Army officers. All of whom were named Lucian Truscott. Yes, our source is Lucian Truscott IV.
Posted by: Chuck Nolan | June 30, 2005 at 05:54 PM
Frightening:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/30/international/asia/30afghanistan.html?pagewanted=all
Mood of Anxiety Engulfs Afghans as Violence Rises
By CARLOTTA GALL
KABUL, Afghanistan - The loss of a military helicopter with 17 Americans aboard in eastern Afghanistan on Tuesday comes at a time of growing insecurity here. For the first time since the United States overthrew the Taliban government three and a half years ago, Afghans say they are feeling uneasy about the future.
Violence has increased sharply in recent months, with a resurgent Taliban movement mounting daily attacks in southern Afghanistan, gangs kidnapping foreigners here in the capital and radical Islamists orchestrating violent demonstrations against the government and foreign-financed organizations.
The steady stream of violence has dealt a new blow to this still traumatized nation of 25 million. In dozens of interviews conducted in recent weeks around the country, Afghans voiced concern that things were not improving, and that the Taliban and other dangerous players were gaining strength.
An American Chinook helicopter that crashed on Tuesday was brought down by hostile fire as it was landing during combat in a mountainous border area, American military officials said Wednesday.
Afghans interviewed about the continuing violence also expressed increased dissatisfaction with their own government and the way the United States military was conducting its operations, and said they were suspicious of the Americans' long-term intentions.
"Three years on, the people are still hoping that things are going to work out, but they have become suspicious about why the Americans came, and why the Americans are treating the local people badly," said Jandad Spinghar, leader of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission in Nangarhar Province in the east, just across the Khyber Pass from Pakistan.
Poverty, joblessness, frustrated expectations and the culture of 25 years of war make for a volatile mix in which American military raids, shootings and imprisonments can inflame public opinion, many here say....
Posted by: Ari | June 30, 2005 at 06:55 PM
The military voted en masse for AWOL and his army-hating SoD. Maybe the first time it was forgivable but in 2004 it was obvious that Bush was destroying the army. They are getting what they deserve.
Posted by: JR | June 30, 2005 at 07:12 PM