PDA

View Full Version : Our Lefty Military




Anti Federalist
06-16-2011, 10:07 PM
I'm, pretty much, speechless...



Our Lefty Military

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: June 15, 2011

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/opinion/16kristof.html?_r=2

As we search for paths out of America’s economic crisis, many suggest business as a paradigm for cutting costs. According to my back-of-the-envelope math, top C.E.O.’s earn as much as $1 a second around the clock, partly by cutting medical benefits for employees. So they must be paragons of efficiency, right?

Actually, I’m not so sure. The business sector is dazzlingly productive, but it also periodically blows up our financial system. Yet if we seek another model, one that emphasizes universal health care and educational opportunity, one that seeks to curb income inequality, we don’t have to turn to Sweden. Rather, look to the United States military.

You see, when our armed forces are not firing missiles, they live by an astonishingly liberal ethos — and it works. The military helped lead the way in racial desegregation, and even today it does more to provide equal opportunity to working-class families — especially to blacks — than just about any social program. It has been an escalator of social mobility in American society because it invests in soldiers and gives them skills and opportunities.

The United States armed forces knit together whites, blacks, Asians and Hispanics from diverse backgrounds, invests in their education and training, provides them with excellent health care and child care. And it does all this with minimal income gaps: A senior general earns about 10 times what a private makes, while, by my calculation, C.E.O.’s at major companies earn about 300 times as much as those cleaning their offices. That’s right: the military ethos can sound pretty lefty.

“It’s the purest application of socialism there is,” Wesley Clark, the retired four-star general and former supreme allied commander of NATO forces in Europe, told me. And he was only partly joking.

“It’s a really fair system, and a lot of thought has been put into it, and people respond to it really well,” he added. The country can learn from that sense of mission, he said, from that emphasis on long-term strategic thinking.

The military is innately hierarchical, yet it nurtures a camaraderie in part because the military looks after its employees. This is a rare enclave of single-payer universal health care, and it continues with a veterans’ health care system that has much lower costs than the American system as a whole.

Perhaps the most impressive achievement of the American military isn’t its aircraft carriers, stunning as they are. Rather, it’s the military day care system for working parents.

While one of America’s greatest failings is underinvestment in early childhood education (which seems to be one of the best ways to break cycles of poverty from replicating), the military manages to provide superb child care. The cost depends on family income and starts at $44 per week.

“I absolutely think it’s a model,” said Linda K. Smith, executive director of the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies, which advocates for better child care in America. Ms. Smith, who used to oversee the military day care system before she retired from the Defense Department, said that the military sees child care as a strategic necessity to maintain military readiness and to retain highly trained officers.

One of the things I admire most about the military is the way it invests in educating and training its people. Its universities — the military academies — are excellent, and it has R.O.T.C. programs at other campuses around the country. Many soldiers get medical training, law degrees, or Ph.D.’s while in service, sometimes at the country’s finest universities.

Then there are the Army War College, the Naval War College and the Air War College, giving top officers a mid-career intellectual and leadership boost before resuming their careers. It’s common to hear bromides about investing in human capital, but the military actually shows that it believes that.

Partly as a result, it manages to retain first-rate officers who could earn far higher salaries in the private sector. And while the ethic of business is often “Gimme,” the military inculcates an ideal of public service that runs deep. In Afghanistan, for example, soldiers sometimes dig into their own pockets to help provide supplies for local schools.

Granted, it may seem odd to seek a model of compassion in an organization whose mission involves killing people. It’s also true that the military remains often unwelcoming to gays and lesbians and is conflicted about women as well. And, of course, the opportunities for working-class Americans are mingled with danger.

But as we as a country grope for new directions in a difficult economic environment, the tendency has been to move toward a corporatist model that sees investments in people as woolly-minded sentimentalism or as unaffordable luxuries. That’s not the only model out there.

So as the United States armed forces try to pull Iraqi and Afghan societies into the 21st century, maybe they could do the same for America’s.

Hoo-ah!

Anti Federalist
06-16-2011, 10:11 PM
We'll just overlook this scene, played out hundreds of thousands of times over the past ten years.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-26IEEzy2N40/TdJbc8v7AnI/AAAAAAAAAFI/N46l0taYExk/s1600/drone+attacks+in+pakistan.jpg

The military is integrated and has great day care...

Who the fuck are these people???

I swear, I've woken up in Bizarro World.

Danke
06-16-2011, 10:17 PM
Then it should be self funded, without forced contributions. See how successful the model works then.

James Madison
06-16-2011, 10:47 PM
Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.--George Washington



The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force.--Thomas Jefferson


What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.--Elbridge Gerry

It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control...The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.--Samuel Adams

The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier, and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.--Thomas Jefferson

Looks like all these guys were terrorists...:rolleyes:

heavenlyboy34
06-16-2011, 10:57 PM
It seems that Mr Kristoff has never been an entrepreneur or had any major responsibilities in a real business with the logic he puts forth.

Vessol
06-16-2011, 11:00 PM
I stopped reading at this.



Actually, I’m not so sure. The business sector is dazzlingly productive, but it also periodically blows up our financial system

And then went on to this:


So as the United States armed forces try to pull Iraqi and Afghan societies into the 21st century, maybe they could do the same for America’s.

LOLWUT!?

Pericles
06-16-2011, 11:17 PM
This is the view of someone only superficially familiar with the US Army. Here you can read from someone with the view that the military loses its best people to the private sector and why - a crappy promotion system.

http://sergeyivanov.org/Documents/Why%20Our%20Best%20Officers%20Are%20Leaving%20-%20Magazine%20-%20The%20Atlantic.pdf

Anyone who was in during the 1990s can tell you why it went to Hell and the result is being seen today in the wars and non wars currently being waged.

A brief history - after Sandbox I, Bush I decided that the peace dividend meant the Army would have a 40% cut in personnel - this hardly is a environment in which the ambitious would have promotion opportunities, as the then system favored the academy graduates and young soldiers over experience (budget rules are that more senior people cost more because they will qualify for retirement), so the emphasis became (especially during the Clinton years) to force out the people with 8 to 14 years experience, in order to make room for the favored class championed by DACOWITS (Department of the Army Committee On Women In The Service). This is the start of Bizarro World in which any General Officer cringes at the very mention of DACOWITS, so the result was to promote women without relevent experience to positions for which they were not qualified (think Janis Karpenski and Claudia Kennedy).

This was not limited to the Army - the Navy tossed out carrier pilots (who cost the taxpayers some money to train) in order to make room for women such as Kayla Hultgren to dump a F-14 in the drink due to pilot error.

Add in the civil economy, which is going well, the secondary effects of a no draft army (people who join tend to have families), and throw in some single moms, and the Army is now in the daycare business. And if you don't have the traditional warrior types pissed off enough, toss in don't ask, don't tell.

By 1995, I had the last straw that broke my camel's back.

The difference between all of this and racial integration is that the Army had segregated units of the same type - colored infantry regiments and white infantry regiments. That you can integrate because you have soldiers in two different units with the same jobs and training. The Army does not have all female infantry regiments, and as soon as they try it, they will get a lesson on why.

In the five sided puzzle palace, the generals trying to hang on until retirement willingly went along for the ride. Generally forgotten in 1001, is that Rumsfeld was going to take the Army from 10 divisions to 8, but then the world changed for him, and subsequent events have shown that no matter the drones, you still don't control territory until infantrymen with bayonets are standing on it. And the few officers still left to stand up to the silliness have pretty much been cycled out, and Gates has been a welcome relief in an attempt to stop the silliness, but the military is probably too far gone to be an effective force against a capable opponent for at least the next 10 years.

emazur
06-16-2011, 11:21 PM
I stopped reading at this.
"Actually, I’m not so sure. The business sector is dazzlingly productive, but it also periodically blows up our financial system"


He's actually correct, but fails to acknowledge that it is intended to blow up by government design

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWTwvBQTtgw

Vessol
06-16-2011, 11:53 PM
^ If someone adds tasty poison(low interest rates) to a lake and kills all the fish, you don't blame the fish entirely for drinking it.

Mach
06-17-2011, 03:29 AM
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF...... http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-sick017.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

ExPatPaki
06-17-2011, 10:12 AM
Looks like all these guys were terrorists...:rolleyes:

Oh if you don't call them terrorists, some RPF members will proudly call these people women-hating barbarians because of their culture. :rolleyes:

flightlesskiwi
06-17-2011, 12:16 PM
to anybody who has any practical common sense, understanding of economics, and, especially to those who have previously mentioned skills paired with personal dealings with the united states military (i'll admit there are not many with all three), that article is a HUGE insult.

the writer is obviously delusional.

flightlesskiwi
06-17-2011, 12:19 PM
but i will say this: the us military has ALWAYS been a breeding ground for "social experimentation" (also medical experimentation-- think vaccines). another reason why it just should not exist.

Pericles
06-17-2011, 12:28 PM
A couple of stories from a couple of guys of how it "used to be" -

Discussion was under way when this story was submitted:

"An even better hassle happened one weekend when I was in the USAR. We did a water jump off Sandy Hook. Absolutely great –– out of the helicopter at 3,000 feet, long glide down, into the water, out of the chute and police boats picked us up. Then on the beach we changed into dry stuff (and saw a bunch of needles and medical waste, which made us feel not so great about the water jump), got our rifles and started on a 12 mile march. Some cop stops us. Why? We have assault rifles. Big black scary unlawful assault rifles (M16A1s). "Lady," our team sergeant says, "we are the Army. We're supposed to have rifles." After she takes offense at being called "Lady" –– she was that sort of copchick who has no use for men, if you know what I mean and I think you do –– she starts to lecture us on NJ law. We really do not give a flying rat's ass about NJ law. She calls for backup. They tell her they are not coming out to arrest the Army, sorry about that, thanks for playing. She pouts. The team leader suggests a compromise and we break down and pack our 16s in our rucks. With only the evil assault tips, fitted with criminally inclined flash suppressors, of the deadly assault barrels with their brutal, violent assault bayonet lugs peeking out of the flaps of our rucks, we complete the march. One of our wags observes that if we killed her and threw her in with the rest of the medical waste, the NJ public might be safer, because the next cop might actually pursue criminals.

We all said, "Naaaaah."

Only to be topped by this one:

In 1974, I was an MPI detached to Oakland Army Base. We were doing a SE Asia "money run" from Mc Clellan AFB to the federal reserve in SF. The CO of the detail got word to pull off in Richmond and stand to as the FBI had a report of a plot to hit the money run. We dismounted ( my partner and I were in suits with M16A1s, but everyone else was in uniform, also with M16A1s. The uniforms formed a perimeter around the flatbed truck with the sealed conex with the cash. A Richmond cop comes up and tells us that if we don't put our weapons away, he is going to arrest us. The captain (several tours in Vietnam, comes over, points his weapon at the cop, locks and loads, and advises the cop he is about to be shot, as he is "trespassing in a National Defense Security zone" Of course, everyone followed his lead. The cop retreated and called for back-up. Shift supervisor (a vet) showed up, chewed out the Adam Henry, then apologized to the Captain.

klamath
06-17-2011, 12:33 PM
But it is not self funding. It is a parisite on the business would. It serves it's purpose just like firefighters etc, but none of these organizations self fund. They most live off something else. You cannot take a single government tax funded agency and call it the perfect working socialist system.