Many of them hang on only because prospects for good civilian jobs have been dismal for many years. And often those who do land good jobs on the outside are those the military can least afford to lose. Last year, retired Army Lt. Gen. David Barno joined a small chorus of military experts who decry a perceived "brain drain." Barno wrote for the website Foreign Policy that the services are losing their most talented junior officers and enlisted leaders to opportunities in the civilian sector because military leadership wasn't providing them with the right opportunities or fighting hard enough to keep them.
3 comments:
The first few paragraphs shine a light on what passes for the moral compass of so many of "our" troops. They joined up so they would get the chance to invade foreign lands and kill the people who would inevitably try to expel them.
Of course they knew would be fighting as part of the most lavishly funded and best-equipped military in history, with every conceivable material advantage. They would fight against an enemy with no air support, no armored vehicles, no guided artillery, no advanced communications, no modern medical care, no body armor -- basically NONE of the advantages possessed by modern military forces. In spite of seeking a fight with such a "soft" enemy, they would be regarded as brave and heroic; their enemies dismissed as "cowards" who wouldn't come out in the open and "fight fair."
The odds that these soldiers would survive with no serious injuries would be very high. (Indeed, it's safer for them in Afghanistan than in many US cities.) Then they'd get to come home, combat veteran status and faux "bad-ass" credentials in hand, to receive all the benefits, forced public adulation, and ego-stroking they desired. Brainwashed citizens and lying politicians would piously express gratitude for their "service," never stopping to think exactly whom they had served. (It certainly wasn't the American people. The threat of terrorism, negligible though it is, increases in response to this foreign aggression. The increased threat is then used to justify the loss of civil liberties at home. Have we been getting more or less free since the "War on Terror" began?)
But now many aren't going to get the chance to fight, and they're not happy about it. No bragging rights for them! And later in the article, we read that "our" troops are dissatisfied with the level of appreciation they're receiving. They are also not being pampered to the extent they wish.
The mentality described above matches that of the police thugs who terrorize Americans in their streets and homes every day. And more than a few will choose to join the ranks of those thugs when they leave the military. Maybe then they'll get their chance to "see some action" against soft targets.
Great points by Anon at 5:33AM.
I see much of the same attitude. Sad to see so many young men signing up to encroach upon the rights of others and give up their own to serve a military that is used to disrupt other nation's sovereignty.
Standing armies are a bad deal for an allegedly free citizenry.
have to agree with you anon 5:33 AM.
Post a Comment