RE: Not much sympathy from me

I'm not really sure what you are insinuating by the marketing slogan remark unless you mean that in the past you had a nation at war--the people were mobilized behind their army, and today you have a military at war, while America is at the mall. In that case I'd heartily agree with you. The general public is in complete blackout drive on what's really going on and what the real issues are, and they have copious misconceptions. The news is absolutely no help in this regard either. Our soundbite simplistic bumper-sticker media does a hideous job of giving an understanding of the situation.

If your insinuation is that the military are politically bought in to what's going on, then I'd really have to take issue with you. The military is supposed to be, and succeeds in being apolitical and serves the nation, not a party. I have written in the past about concerns I have for the future of the civil-military relationship, but I think it's not too late to seal the rift before it rips open. My primary concern is that the way the political parties themselves treat the military will unconsciously drive perceptions between themselves and in the military.

If your insinuation is that the soldiers join and then conditions change and they are stuck, you are only partly right. Yes there is a higher officer attrition than "normal", but there was also a very high officer attrition rate in the late 90s as well. It doesn't mean that officers a disgruntled or anything, most that have been getting out are just tired and have a few deployments to give them the right to be tired--especially when the rest of the country just doesn't have their head in the game and they end up shouldering the whole burden for the country. Many officers can actually resign at any time as long as they are not under mandatory service obligations (i.e. West Pointers and ROTC guys with scholarships have a minimum service time to pay back). Once that is done, theoretically you can resign. Enlisted guys, however, sign up for a certain number of years, from 2 to 8. Once their time is up you can't make them stay. That said, re-enlistment rates are very very high so the hypothesis that they don't have a choice doesn't hold up for them either.

I also vehemently disagree with your statement about the expectations of the State Department guys. I really have to wonder what they thought they were getting into other than to serve the nation, and sometimes that entails going to some out of the way places and getting your hands dirty. These guys are needed, and badly. Sitting in what Thomas Barnett called the Functioning Core doesn't do us much good...these guys need to get out into the "non-integrated gap" and make stuff happen BEFORE things turn into an Afghanistan or Somalia. Working for USG and taking the money means you serve, and historically the State got out and did this kind of work.

I'll agree that they need to change the system and recruit people who are actually willing to serve, and compensate them well. The current State system actually hurts people who serve in these positions and rewards the guys in the cushy assignments in big metropolises.

I also agree that there is value in universal service and the intimate connection with the people and their Army--the military is at war, America is at the mall--but I really don't ever want to see the draft or have to deal with the problems the draft used to entail. You mentioned an alternative service--not just a military one. I agree in principle, but what do you have them do?

I hear that China has a system where their medical doctors spend a year in Africa for their residency and then return home. I've also heard a lot lately that Africa needs less aid and pity and more political reform and economic development. There are lots of other places in the world where we could send disaster relief teams and volunteers, to include our own country. I'm just a little skeptical on the details.

Star This to Save in Your Profile