Subj : The War Has No Clothes
To   : Daemon
From : Frank Reid
Date : Tue Oct 04 2005 09:39 pm

  Re: The War Has No Clothes
  By: Daemon to Frank Reid on Tue Oct 04 2005 05:14 pm

 >   Why would you consider it "disconcerting" to demand constant improvement
 > across the board, particularly in light of failures illuminated by constant
 > non-partisan, bi-partisan, and even partisan vigilence?

See, this is why I'm starting to like you. :)

 >   How telling, Frank.  You imply criticism if I actually have a slant while
 > simutaneously revealing your own.  Should I rise to the bait and denouce
 > conservatism just to make you happy, or do you mind if I continue to think b
 > labels are equally harmful and destructive in today's political climate?

I'm equally irritated by the extremes on both sides (and the other one
has the guns!)  It just so happens, with the current administration, the
one on the left is that which undermines our military objective, whether
of malicious intent or not, because of an insatiable appetite for
political hay (which is very different from political change).

 >   lol!  Is that a veiled threat, Frank?  An almost-but-not-quite accusation 
 > a super-radical agenda on my part that (dare I say it?) for some mysterious
 > reason seems to you to include some kind of terrorism or armed action?  I'd
 > love to see a single quote of mine dredged from somewhere in all these
 > discussions that justifies such a concern.  Go look for a while, and maybe
 > you'll notice I'm pretty vocally against using force over diplomacy (or inst
 > of it).

Idealists are humans too, and they get frustrated when change doesn't
happen as quickly as they'd like (possibly moreso than the realists). 
Despite our short history, it's very apparent we did good in setting the
ground rules, and that our system will ultimately evolve socially when
humankind around us allows to do that.  That should be enough to keep
them moving towards their ideals.

 >   At least...  I HOPE the next pres., regardless of affiliation, isn't as mu
 > of a lightning rod as he is, so it's awfully likely my own criticisms will b
 > less absolute than they are currently, but hardly guaranteed.

You have no idea how much I agree.

 >   Sure, I understand.  (Good analogy, BTW.)  The only outstanding question I
 > have, then, is whether a regime...  er...  administration change to a
 > Democratic white house will stand you to lose position, prestige, and/or
 > influence.

Not in the least.  I'm quite happily not that far up the food chain, and
I deliberately avoid even the same dinner parties!  Sometimes,
patriotism smacks of patronage, but I'll always error on the side of
caution.

 >   Glad you used the term "nut-job".  Shows you're at least aware it's an ins
 > position to hold.

If you're on the field after the game begins, there is no other position
that can bring you to the right goal line.  Believe me, you want to be
rooting for the nut-jobs.

 > to retirement in the Air Force right now if not for a bone tumor in my leg t
 > took years to diagnose and trest properly?  Even not properly diagnosed, it 
 > a disqualifying condition).

So sorry to hear that.  The body is such a frail transport for such a
powerful instrument.  I'm dealing with my own demons (no pun intended),
but I haven't determined whether it's the aging process or just
complacency.  With the nest empty, it could be time for this old soldier
to head out to pasture.  I'm still deciding where that might be.

 >   Which is why I habitually decry moronic statements made by people who insi
 > you can't be anti-Iraq and pro-military at the same time.  Credit where it's

There's a fine line that's unfortunately pretty well obscured for most
spectators, and I'm quite sure I fear it more than I understand it.  It
probably has everything to do with how we performed in Vietnam, and how
that affected me personally.  As I've stated, my yardstick is how the
crowd reaction is interpreted in the mess tent.  Fortunately, my own
forays didn't seem to grab the headlines or generate the division that
this one has.  And I'm quite sure that much of that has much more to do
with the "lightening rod" than sincere interest in either the legitimacy
or the outcome. 

The truly unfortunate thing is that our "War against Islamic Extremism"
is inextricably intertwined with this one, regardless of whether that's
purely in the abstract now, and that war will not be over for a long,
long time.  We will surely need to call upon these same soldiers again
to fight future battles.  We must be careful we do not create the drain
created by the exodus of motivated soldiers and, even more importantly,
the unfairness we heaped upon them in the 60s and early 70s.

 >   I suspect you would act differently, in deference to the office.  Here, we
 > going to have to resolutely disagree if so.

There is no alternative but deference to the office.  He is the
Commander-in-Chief, and that's more than just a figurehead role when you
walk into battle knowing you may not return. 

 >   Kudos for you for finding your way into the system on the heels of what
 > sounds like a lot of effort.  But I don't imagine there's enough room down t
 > particular avenue of life for 300,000,000 other people to follow and also en
 > what you do.

You'd really be surprised how idyllic a social model military life can
be... Well, less the killing and warfighting parts, that is.  There's
equity, opportunity and absolute harmony towards a common cause. 
Unfortunately, we're not ready for that yet on a broader scale.

 >   Nice.  Too bad about the neighborhood, but at least he won't live there
 > forever.  ;)

Yeah, you have to learn to deal with all the transients in this area. ;)
We're transplants ourselves, of course, and it's unlikely this is our
final travel destination.  We've talked about Pennsylvania, Tennessee,
the Southwest, who knows... Someplace where the retirement check buys a
bit more peace.

 >   Yeah, I hear you on th English thing, but it can be quite a barrier to
 > commmunication sometimes.  My father treats it like a foreign language, for
 > instance, which makes for some intensely frustrating arguments over things
 > which we actually agree 100% about but he insist on using his particular
 > version of broken-English to clumsily and very inaccurately describe his poi
 > of view.

I don't even need to be a fly-on-the-wall to envision those discussions
with crystal clarity! ;)

 >   Anyway, far more disclosure than I'd asked for.  Aside from the noted
 > difference between who gets sanctified in the general heirarchy, an awful lo
 > of similarities, really.
 > 
 >   But that's a pretty huge difference of fundamental political positions to
 > have as starting points in these kinds of discussions I suppose.

Agreed, but diversity is what ensures our survival... Ask Darwin. ;)

---
 þ Synchronet þ Ultimate Geeks - Upper Marlboro, MD

.