Mickey Z
Cool Observer
Friday, July 07, 2006
Don't support our (sic) troops
Ok, so you say don’t support the troops because of the military operations. What is your solution, get rid of the DoD entirely? I don’t see any solutions in your blog other than try to convince troops not to join the military.
Posted by Wayne on from Alaska 07/07 at 07:05 AMThanks for stopping by, Wayne. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to imply that a criticism is not valid unless it contains a “solution.” If so, I strongly disagree. Also, I’m not seeking one solution. We need many, many solutions.
Still, having said that, I did offer two suggestions:
1. Inform the troops
2. If you believe Americans are forced into military service for economic reasons, work to rectify that situation instead of supporting military interventions across the globe.You also ask if I’d get rid of the Department of Defense. Well, let’s be clear: It’s the Dept. of War. If we had a true Defense Dept., it would require a tiny fraction of what the DoD current wastes. This ties in nicely with suggestion #2 above.
Anyway, thanks again for making a comment. As a military man, I’m sure much of what we say sounds offensive to you but I do appreciate your civil tone and willingness to debate.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 07/07 at 08:49 AMGREAT ARTICLE, MICKEY. What a coincidence...I just received this link in my e-mail from a friend who is a veteran.
http://www.splcenter.org/Welcome to the group, Wayne. I like your question. Yes, I would definately get rid of the DoD. In reality it is NOT a department of defense. It has been a department of OFFENSE for decades. Wearing a uniform might make a fashion statement, but it gives no one the moral right to murder civilians. Many respected historians, such as Bill Blum, advocate cutting the military budget by 90%. I disagree with Blum. I advocate cutting it by 99%.
Posted by RMJ on from Churchill 4 Prez Hdqts 07/07 at 09:02 AMTop of the morn to MZ, RMJ, and Wayne (from an uncomfortably warm/humid city near the Gulf)
Fine article today MZ. I am imagining right now how many people would have “Support Our Foreign Policy” ribbons on their cars…
And just to supplement what you said above, MZ, I think it’s important to recall that the Department of Defense was formerly called the War Department, in fact. But the name was changed when the U.S. began to step-up its policies of war and aggression (Orwell, anyone?)
Off to work no-wage job for tips now, so gotta go. Have a good weekend, y’all.
Posted by RT on from The Buyou City 07/07 at 09:18 AMWelcome, Wayne. I have to agree with RMJ and Mickey...we’re going to spend a half a TRILLION this year on “defense.” The ironic thing about that is throughout this illegal war in Iraq “our” troops have consistently been without important equipment. Like Mickey said in his article, the war racket is great business...all human considerations aside.
Posted by JOS on from Chicago 07/07 at 09:18 AMWell said, Mickey. I would never demean my fellow citizens, by way of claiming they are not smart enough to know they have a choice, a moral choice. I knew enough young heroes who had the courage of their convictions during Vietnam, to go to prison or Canada (hell or heaven?). I got lucky in the lottery and so was spared that.
But it does raise the specter of truth of our young people in the US (and maybe young hormone fueled humans in general), that look at the military as a way to go out and kill and maim in packs, and to get praised for it. They also get a lifetime welfare like benefits. There seems to be a vestigial hormonal reward for this ant like group behavior. A drug like high called “blood lust”. In a pack the size of the US military, you are, statistically speaking. very safe.
Mmmm captcha="she" maybe for the wonderful Rosemary who also so inspires.
Posted by Peter (the other) on from California 07/07 at 09:52 AMHello RMJ, RT, and JOS. Thanks for adding some important points. I just got an e-mail that offers some statistics about how many soldiers do enlist for economic reasons. I hope to post that info here soon to provide some balance.
For now, I’m happy to report that is a proverbial “beach day” here in NYC.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 07/07 at 09:53 AMSorry, Peter, we were simultyping. I’m glad you missed that lottery.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 07/07 at 09:55 AMMe again. Here’s some of that e-mail I mentioned above:
You write: “I know, you think I’m ignoring the economic factors that “force” young people to join the military. But this is America, not Sierra Leone. Without being facetious, I ask: Does anyone know how many U.S. soldiers enlisted simply for financial reasons? Is it as many as we assume? Are these people completely oblivious to what military men and women are
expected to do?” You then state that economic basis for joining is an “unproven premise.” It’s not. It would also be nice if you didn’t strawmen those who cite economic factors in elistment. There are few who take such a mono-causal, deterministic stance, and most acknowledge a variety of reasons for joining.However, there is much data to suggest that it is a considerable factor. The Department of Defense’s Selected Manpower Statistics report, for example, offers the data on educational attainment for the enlisted:
Graduated From College 3.6%
Completed 2 or More Years Collgee 9.5%
Completed Some College 10.5%
Graduated From High School 99.1%
... (http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/M01/fy02/m01fy02.pdf, pg. 29)The high school figure is a considerable change from previous generations. There is a huge disjuncture between high school and college attainment (both partial and complete), however. This suggests two things: 1) that many people may join the army because it offers a guaranteed path to completing higher education that they might not otherwise be able to attain and 2) that those with a high level of formal education (college degree and up) do not consider the army as an option.
This is backed by a 1991 Armed Forces and Society article that found: “The estimated motivational probabilities suggest several differently motivated subgroups of Army Reserve recruits. One group, consisting primarily of those of traditional college age and in the higher mental categories, joined seeking money. In almost 70 percent of the cases this meant money for college. The effect was most pronounced for the youngest recruits in
the two highest mental categories who were high school graduates or had had some postsecondary education. For them, as shown in Table 1, the estimated probability that a particular individual joined for money was as high as .70.” ("ENLISTMENT MOTIVATIONS OF ARMY RESERVISTS: MONEY, SELF-IMPROVEMENT, OR PATRIOTISM?,” Armed Forces and Society, vol 17, no. 4 (Summer 1991))Likewise, in response to the question “What was your primary reason for joining the military [asked only of service members]?” the #1 material factor was “College Tuition Benefits” at 28%. The highest factor, material or otherwise, was “Serve the Country” at 36%, which in fact potentially helps YOUR case without undercutting the economic argument. But note also that the reasons given there do not total 100%, suggesting that there might be more reasons behind joining, or more people who cite
college. The survey methodology description does not adequately describe how it assessed non-answers, which is a severe shortcoming of the study, conducted by the Annenberg Center at UPenn.
(http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes 2004_03_2military-data_10-16_pr.pdf, pp. 6)Finally, a less scholarly, more anecdotal New York Times article,
“Military Mirrors Working-Class America,” concludes similarly that the more affluent (and more formally educated) discard the military as an option, while those who do not look to it for economic benefits that would otherwise be difficult to attain. The article notes that the military is essentially almost all working-class, and that people join it for a variety of reasons. Economic benefits come up repeatedly in the interviews, alongside the more idealistic reasons like “patriotism.”
("Military Mirrors Working-Class America,” New York Times, 30 March 2005)There are far more attitidunal studies examining why people join the military, written by people or groups from a wide spectrum of political orientations and interests (DoD, military sociologists, public opinion takers). If you were to synthesize it, you would probably come to a very nuanced conclusion, but that’s something missing from nearly all your analysis. In any case, the economic rationale is not “unproven,” as you state in your piece. The real tragedy is that the military IS the best option for some people, and it shouldn’t be that way.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 07/07 at 10:40 AMGood points in the email…
Off topic...thank God, the FBI caught the “Chat Room” terrorists:
Posted by JOS on from Chicago 07/07 at 11:25 AMMickey #9...you make a lot of good points. I think that many enlist because of the the lack of other opportunities...BUT, the military should not be thought of as a jobs program. The problem is, that it IS a jobs program...killing for a paycheck, that’s what its all about.
JOS #5 Hi...Do you want the troops to have more equipment? Or were you just making an observation.
Peter #6..."killing and getting praised for it”, very well stated. You also allude to the “pack-like mentality”. I have gotten some e-mails from military guys who say that they kill to protect their buddies on either side of them. Their buddies would not need protection if they were not involved in an illegal Occupation of a sovereign nation.
Posted by RMJ on from Churchill 4 Prez Hdqts 07/07 at 01:50 PMI think the email Mickey posted was from someone else…
No, RMJ, no more equipment for the military...my point was simply showing the government’s complete disregard for human life, even their own troop’s lives, when they have a half a trillion dollars to spend, yet don’t supply many of their soldiers with flak jackets. Yet still many troops ignore these obvious facts and support their government and their wars.
Posted by JOS on from Chicago 07/07 at 02:40 PMThanks JOS. I get your point. Can you account for your whereabouts today? I hear there was some flag burning going on in your neck of the woods. (just teasing)
Posted by RMJ on from Churchill 4 Prez Hdqts 07/07 at 04:23 PMGood one, Mickey - ‘don’t support our troops’.
Am back from Melbourne and everything turned out well - except I won’t be coming to the US of A any time soon. Still - we are going to New Zealand in early November. I have also sent an international draft to you, Mickey.
‘Hi’ to all the other expendables. Will visit again later today.
Ciao amici,
HelgaPosted by Helga Fremlin on from Daylesford, Australia 07/07 at 05:02 PMRMJ...As far as you know I was here at Mickey’s all day...they can’t prove a thing.
Posted by JOS on from Chicago 07/07 at 05:05 PMI wouldn’t mind doing away with the DOD because of the resources that we could distribute in more productive ways. But if we did that what would happen to us? Do we leave ourselves wide open to an attack? Maybe if everyone did away with their military that may work but I can’t see that happening anytime soon.
Posted by David on from Louisville KY 07/07 at 05:39 PMGah, half a trillion dollars! Why not move to some little country with a peanut in a catapult for its entire national defence, and see how safe you are! Exactly! Completely safe, as nobody’ll try and attack them!
Ah, dear me, $500,000,000,000. I just had to put that in numbers to see how many noughts it is! A ridiculous sum. 30,000 people will die today (and tomorrow, and yesterday) due to extreme poverty of a form few of us can imagine.
On a similar theme, today I saw the movie “Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room,” Highly recommended, and my jaw was dropping in a few places when their sleazy traders came on and tried to justify the California blackout / fraud. Sorry to bore those very familar with this, but I only caught a few vague details (coverage that I caught over here was very muddy indeed) at the time and it fair took my breath away.
JOS re 12, in England we spent around £30 billion a year on our toy soldiers. A pittance, I know - and many of them have bulletproof vests with the armour plate taken out! Oh joy. So at least the money’s being well spent ...
Captcha says “function.” Damn that psychic captcha!
Posted by Chris Wood on from Manchester, odd wet lovely Manchester 07/07 at 05:58 PMLong Island Express = big organic farm.
Great suggestion Mickey.Posted by Keir on from The Hague 07/07 at 06:42 PMChris...my jaw dropped during that part of the documentary as well.
Posted by JOS on from Chicago 07/07 at 06:49 PM“Mershon said the plan was “what we believe was the real deal,” a scheme involving al Qaeda members on three continents.”
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/07/tunnel.plot/index.html
This one was the “real deal,” we swear...not like the last 20 plots we prevented...really.
Posted by JOS on from Chicago 07/07 at 06:52 PMHello Expendables. Michele and I finished all our work early enough to hit the beach and take advantage of a prime weather day.
I’m glad to see the discussion carrying on here and Keir, good to have you back.
Where’s Mudge?
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 07/07 at 07:16 PMJOS #15...and remember that I was there with you and Mick. My eyelashes got singed while I was baking bread.
David #16...The best way to prevent an attack would be for the usa to stop doing the things that make them hate us. I agree that we won’t get rid of the military. Too many are making a big profit on war. If we tax it, it might go away. That is why I have advocated a big war tax. People in this country think with their wallets. We should be paying cash for war and not putting it on our grand kids credit cards. Can you imagine the resistance that would rise up if suddenly everyone was told that they had to give 50% of their income to the military and another 20 or 30% to pay reparations for the damage that we have done.
Hi Kier, Chris, and Helga
Posted by RMJ on from Churchill 4 Prez Hdqts 07/07 at 07:21 PMMickey were you and Michele at a real beach with an ocean? Oh how I envy you. I haven’t been swimming since last year. I miss the ocean almost as much as I miss Mudge.
Posted by RMJ on from Churchill 4 Prez Hdqts 07/07 at 07:25 PMYes, RMJ, we went to Long Beach. You’ll have to come down and join us some time.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 07/07 at 07:47 PMRMJ, Are you saying that if the USA just would quit making other people hate us then we wouldn’t need the military and everyone would love us so much they wouldn’t attack us? That’s a pretty silly statement. Remember this: The ONLY reason you can make comments such as yours is because you live in a free country. That freedom was paid for with the blood of men you never knew. If this was say China Mickey Z and you would be spending time in a slave labor camp making shirts to be sold at Wal-Mart. I love this web-site and I agree with most that is said here but we have to remember that people long ago paid a price for us so that we can have a honest and open forum such as this to say our peace.
Posted by David on from Louisville KY 07/07 at 10:35 PMDavid, with all due respect, I fail to see how the men who fought in Vietnam, Korea, WWII, etc. had anything to do with me writing what I write on my site.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 07/08 at 06:26 AMMickey, Ok so if you lived in China you would feel safe railing against that Government the way you rail against this one. I disagree with the war in Iraq and most of the things our Government does. I feel badly when I think of how this country came about and the many people who suffer today because of our actions around the globe and I speak out about it.
To speak out in this Country doesn’t take any courage because we are a free country and we are not free just because we say we are. People long ago paid for that freedom that we enjoy today.
Posted by David on from Louisville KY 07/08 at 07:30 AMDavid, no one is denying that dissidents are treated harshly in China. My question is this: What did those men do “long ago” to give me “freedom”?
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 07/08 at 07:33 AMDavid...please go over to Saturday’s page. I am answering you there. Thanks.
Posted by RMJ on from Churchill 4 Prez Hdqts 07/08 at 07:43 AMI am open to debate, just making sure its two sided. Most of what i have seen (up until David’s comments) has been one way. And the fact that you have a blog and a website and sell many books tells me you have plenty of freedom to speak your piece, so quotation marks aren’t needed, as quotes are used to say something satirically. I am not offended by people speaking out against war or political policies that set the course that way. I would love to see the DoD get reduced and more money put into health care, education, etc. But if you were to ask all the commanders, each would say his part is needed to safeguard America’s borders and skies. Planes would be needed to protect the skies and for evacutation and airlifts for nat’l emergencies, ships to patrol our coasts and again provide a means to bring in relief supplies, ground troops to support homeland security operations such as attacks (yes it can happen) or natural disasters, etc. If it were truly a Department of Defense, yes i can see reducing our footprint and expenditures to only take care of our own country’s defense. Only on our own soil. But at the same time we have troops for purely defensive reasons, I believe every means possible should be exhausted to prevent war. This would include multi-party talks, going after American businesses that profit from corrupt governments, and cut off foreign military aid. Oh yeah, also keeping our noses in our own business as far as foreign leadership. I don’t agree with planned coups for foreign leaders we don’t like. If the people in countries want to change, they should have to do it on their own, without our interference. And back to my point, even if we were to make economic conditions better here in the U.S. so that folks have more options, some kind of national security is needed. Maybe I have drifted off the subject but I am trying to offer up some solutions.
Posted by wayne on from alaska 07/08 at 01:07 PMHey Wayne, thanks for saying all this. If I didn’t know better, I’d think you were campaigning on the Green Party line. If the U.S. military were run by the guidelines you describe above, it would be a powerful step in the direction of peace and justice.
If you don’t mind, maybe you can join in here on weekday swhen there’s a bigger crowd. I’d hate for your comments to get lost on an older post and I’d love to hear what others have to say.
Finally, as for it being one-sided here, well...the folks who visit this site probably learned of it from one of my articles or from a like-minded friend. So, it’s not surprising to find many kindred souls here. However, when it comes to being one-sided, let’s start with a look at the corporate media.
Thanks again, Wayne.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 07/08 at 01:20 PMCorporate media one sided? no, it isn’t (Fox cough cough). Sarcasm intended.
I rash by saying freedom of speech was empirical (sp?) in our country, because if one were to bring up foreign policy to his neighbor when servicemen were standing at attention to the national anthem mid court during a sports event, then freedom of speech may be curtailed by the dumping of cheap beer that retailed expensively to the speakers head. Or if he were to bring it up at memorial service on Memorial or Veterans Day, he may be run out of the cemetary by bikers and crotchety old guys.
On a serious note, if at a recruiting fair at a high school a national service program had a table set up beside the military and college tables, with the same benefits the military offers, i am sure many would-be military personnel would be interested. Then patriotism, the chance to serve mankind, job training, and of course $$ would all be taken care of.
I found this website through google, after i read your book seven deadly spins.As far as Green Party, not so sure about that, ha ha. I fall in the middle, way between thinking if we could all hold hands and sing Kumbaya then everything would be chipper, and on the other side of dropping bombs on other countries because, well we are the USA and we can do whatever we want, damn the repurcussions. I guess that means I am middle of the road, which of course means that I get hit from both sides of traffic. BTW I have a far right uncle and a far left cousin. The family gittogethers are quite entertaining for their effects.
Posted by Wayne on from Alaska 07/08 at 02:43 PMblog correction:
“I rash” should be changed to “I was rash”
Posted by Wayne on from Alaska 07/08 at 02:46 PMAh, yes, I believe you reviewed (so to speak) my book on your blog with plenty of sarcasm. Was that you?
I’m running out the door. Let’s continue this conversation on Saturday’s board, okay?
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 07/08 at 03:00 PMOne way you could support the troops is by refraining from cross-posting at websites that have close ties to Islamic terrorist groups affiliated with Al-Qaeda.
Just a suggestion…
Regards,
St Wendeler
Posted by St Wendeler on from 07/11 at 01:19 PMSt Wendeler: Please modify your latest post, I did not give permission to that site and until now, I knew nothing about that site. I send articles out and have ZERO control as to who re-posts them. Again, I’d appreciate it if you’d please correct your post ASAP. Thanks.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 07/11 at 02:11 PMMickey Z.... thanks for the response. I will update my post. I would recommend that you ask the “folks” at Kavkaz to remove your writings from their site.
http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/feedback
Posted by St Wendeler on from 07/11 at 02:23 PMThanks. I’ve already contacted them. To be honest, I know nothing about that site and I’m not the type to assume guilt. However, in light of the current political climate, I’ve asked the site to remove my article. From there, I can take a look at who they are, etc. If you have info, please pass it on.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 07/11 at 02:28 PMMickey - I updated my post, apologizing for the criticism since you were being used by Kavkaz…
However, just wanted to let you know that instead of leaving it up there with a correction, I’ve simply deleted it entirely.
Might want to consider the way that your writings might be used by people for purposes which you may not explicitly agree with. If you think Bush wants to “turn back the clock”...
Posted by St Wendeler on from 07/11 at 02:36 PMSt Wendeler: I very much appreciate you deleting the post. Thanks again.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 07/11 at 02:37 PM
Next entry: The Ballad of Big Pri
Previous entry: Don't fry for me, Argentina
Copyright © 2005-2007 Mickey Z.
