RANGER AGAINST WAR: Three Down, . . . <

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Three Down, . . .

Two Bad Mice, Beatrix Potter

The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men
Gang aft agley,
An'lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promis'd joy!
--To a Mouse, Robert Burns
________

That mice have shown up twice in as many days at Ranger says we smell a rat closeby.

Several bloggers have taken note of the fact that three of the seven soldiers who wrote the NYT Op-Ed piece last month are dead or wounded now.


Gun Toting Liberal excerpts from Editor & Publisher, and says,

If anything, this should serve to highlight the fact that there is a “Left” and a “Right”, not only in our country but in the United States military as well, and all opinions are valid and valuable. . .

Left-leaning, liberal-thinking soldiers and officers are generally sidelined and given short-shrift in their careers. I do not want to consider how far the organization might go to silence such voices. That absurd endpoint is too harrowing to consider in a democracy.

Instead, I will consider the corporate culture in the Army.

The service academies by their very nature inculcate conservative values and reward both instructors and students reflecting those values.
The value of ROTC officers used to be their non-regular attitude that often offset this institutional bias. However, now even ROTC has become a cookie-cutter operation churning out robot-like leaders.

That makes the published opinions of these seven soldiers all the more remarkable. Perhaps it was because they were not plotting a career in the armed forces they felt free enough to think and speak their conscience. Freedom used to be the watchword in America.

When was the last time an O-6 (Colonel) or above advocated liberal viewpoints while still in uniform? It doesn't happen because they don't exist. The system eliminates them before the O-6 window. Of course, this is a gross statement of fact, but it is a gross situation that our leaders inhabit such a narrow mental milieu.

Some members of the retired forces have spoken out, perhaps because their sleep is now troubled. But while working on promotions, that was not an avenue they chose.

Even the vaunted Special Forces have become a repository for Ranger-thinking direct action-types. When SF crosses over to direct action, then the UW/GW role is effectively neutralized.


The U.S. has been gunning for awhile now to emulate the hammer-like rigidity of the Spartan army, but the Spartans fell in part because of their inability and resistance to innovate. The UW/GW attitude could equate with liberal thinking, which allows for adaptation and survival in the face of scenarios which defy the best-laid plans of the most decorated thinkers.


As co-author Amos of the much-raved about "Petraus" Counterinsurgency manual said, sometimes the best action is no action, and heavy-handed use of force can often backfire.


--Jim and Lisa

Labels:

3 Comments:

Blogger The Minstrel Boy said...

in his masterful "One Bullet Away" nathaniel fick mentions to one of his college chums that they shold not ban ROTC from their campus. they were an old, ivy league place and would safely remain as such. he said that it was officers from that pool which stood a chance to liberalize the armed forces.

the rigidness and inflexibility of thought is a sure and certain result of our having developed a "military caste". it is by no means the first time this has happened. almost every time this type of culture has been allowed to take hold, it has taken over.

the "immortals" siezed control of persia
the "pretorian guard" siezed control of rom
the "janniessaries" seized control of the ottoman empire
the "mamalukes" siezed control of egypt


it's a story almost as old as civilization.

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 at 9:34:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with the minstrel boy on this. I have nearly a quarter century in the Canadian Forces reserve, most of it as a legal officer. I have taught more CO's to run summary trials than bears thinking about, perhaps more than anyone in the country.

In the countless discussions of the disciplinary system and the culture that it is meant to instill, I have come to the conclusion that there are really only two kinds of armies: citizen armies and mercenaries.

The difference has nothing to do with terms of service, pay, etc. It has everything to do with the culture of the armed force. If it shares the culture of the country it is meant to serve, it is a citizen army. If it does not share that culture, it is foreign, different and, essentially, mercenary, regardless of where it was recruited.

My own view is that an army must reflect its country's culture (with very particular and undetateable exceptions). Without it, it is as much a danger to its own people as the "enemy." It also lacks the depth of culture to survive as a collective entity under stress.

There was a move some years ago to require all officers in the Regular component of the CF to graduate from the Royal Military College, to ensure that they had the proper grounding in "ethics." (Presumably, RMC can clarify all those tricky bits that the Basilians at St. Michael's College didn't understand.) Fortunately, it died a quiet death.

Monday, October 1, 2007 at 5:15:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

anonymous,

Mercenary armies are always a sign of a decadent society, and a symptom that the society is about to fail, in Ranger's opinion. One shudders to think the values that the American army should reflect.

Thank you for bringing a North of the border expertise to the table.

I welcome your particular take on things in the future, esp. on the legal aspects of the war, as seen by a fellow NATO member.

Monday, October 1, 2007 at 5:30:00 PM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

<< Home