Mr. President, you were right during the campaign, your instincts about America’s Islam war are far better than those of your generals. Indeed, you would be better off speaking — with no generals present — to some serving and recently retired or separated field officers and gunnery sergeants. These men and women have actually risked their lives in combat against the Islamists, and they would give you the true skinny about what the republic is facing and why it is in danger of getting stuck like Putin. This is a benefit you will never derive from listening to your generals.
The unprecedented removal from command, ending of military careers and forced retirements is a sign that a new reign of terror wants to weaken the armed forces. The civilian Obama command, bosses generals and admirals, as if they were lowly cooks or stewards. It is no wonder that resentment and disgust in the officer corps are at an all time high. Before long, the commander of collectivists will be deploying taste testers before he takes his meals.
Readers of this space will recall my criticisms of senior U.S. general officers who:
–Are silent when getting their Marines and soldiers killed in wars they know the president has no intention of winning.
–Are endlessly repeating the absolutely false statement “there is no military solution” to this, that, and every conflict, so as to disguise the president’s refusal to win.
–Are rewarded for their spaniel-like obedience to the president, and relentless failure in war, with promotion to high office, such as General Petraeus’s appointment as CIA Director after losing the Iraq and Afghan wars.
–Are allowed to lie and are never challenged by the media when they guarantee Americans that the U.S. military’s training of foreign armies will make them into crack fighting forces able to defend their own countries.
–Are so afraid of losing their perks, fancy uniforms — adorned now with medals/ribbons in the North Korea’s Army’s comic-opera style — and lucrative post-career corporate directorships, that not one of them, in my memory, has resigned and told the electorate what he or she knows to be true; namely, that U.S. war-making since at least the end of the Cold War has been an expensive, bloody, and endless fraud, consistent only in always yielding defeat, wasting the lives of America’s soldier-children, never eliminating America’s enemies, and further compromising U.S. security.
Those who serve in the military are in a difficult position. The oath taken by enlistees states, “I, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” The internal conflict between supporting and defending the Constitution and obeying orders is at the heart of the dilemma of honor and duty. Those who accept that the Presidential chain of command is by nature constitutional; lack a proper understanding of history and professes an even greater ignorance of current affairs.
The prevailing discourse on defense and national security affairs in this country is, and long has been, dominated by the bean counters among us. They are the ones who think and talk almost exclusively in terms of budgets, programs, and weapon systems; who speak in tongues about “resetting” and “rebalancing” to demonstrate how au courant they are; who ignore or assume away more fundamental questions about military purpose, function, and use. Strategically minded visionaries, in contrast, few in number to begin with, are a critically endangered species who have little or no voice.
Many accounts will praise the sacrifices and deeds of those who fought in the American wars. Some versions will emotionally express their thanks and respect, while others will list their heroic actions. There is another viewpoint that seldom gets the attention that it deserves. Simply put, what is the true reason that all this blood was shed and the meaning of continued torment that follows, when the guns are silenced? Some will say, we just need to revere those who served. Others may dare to ask, why and what for?
The 2016 House and Senate budget proposals for war spending that moved toward a congressional floor vote this week were loaded up with tens of billions of dollars more than the Defense Department requested, representing the largest increase lawmakers have attempted to add to the executive branch’s requests for such funds.
Hollywood War Films, An Instrument of Military Indoctrination: The “American Sniper” Reviewers’ Consensus
The defensive focus of vocal support for the film is equally and unsurprisingly the condition of “veterans”. In fact this is probably the single most abused excuse for US war film production since the US regime withdrew its uniformed forces from Vietnam. To be fair—although by no means generous—some of the reviewers suggested that critical attention be focused on those who initiate and manage the wars that create such neglected veterans. As I have argued elsewhere, this is still the “wrong war thesis” and remains a kind of apology for the centuries of carnage wrought by the regime in Washington.